Plaintiff Darin Borne is a resident of Beaumont, Texas. He washired by Defendant around September 2015 to work as a securityofficer.

Defendant is a security company that provides trainedprofessional security officers to maritime, petrochemical, andrefinery facilities in the United States, including at CheniereEnergy, Inc.'s Sabine Pass LNG Terminal in Cameron, Louisiana.Defendant offers a variety of security services, including, ifrequested, the provision of an around-the-clock, twenty-four hourper day security presence at Defendant's customers' facilities.[BN]

AFNI INC: "Heerema" Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class----------------------------------------------------------In the lawsuit styled GEORGE E. HEEREMA, on behalf of himself andthose similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AFNI, INC. and JOHNDOES 1 to 10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00244-JBC(D.N.J.), Mr. Heerema, on consent of Defendant, will move theCourt for an Order certifying this case to proceed as a classaction and granting preliminary approval of the Parties' classsettlement agreement, on behalf of a class of:

"all persons who reside in the State of New Jersey to whom AFNI, Inc. mailed a written communication, in connection with its attempt to collect a debt owed to Sprint, which included a statement that "[p]ayments made electronically to Afni may be subject to a $4.95 processing fee" during the period beginning January 14, 2015, and ending January 14, 2016."

ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Underway-----------------------------------------------------------Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2017, that the company's bid todismiss the amended complaint in a class action suit related tomisrepresentations and omissions about Soliris remains pending.

As previously reported, on December 29, 2016, a shareholder fileda putative class action against the Company and certain formeremployees in the U.S. District Court for the District ofConnecticut, alleging that defendants made misrepresentations andomissions about Soliris. On April 12, 2017, the court appointedlead plaintiff.

On July 14, 2017, lead plaintiff filed an amended putative classaction complaint against the Company and seven current or formeremployees. The complaint alleges that defendants mademisrepresentations and omissions about Soliris, including allegedmisrepresentations regarding sales practices, management changes,and related investigations, between January 30, 2014 and May 26,2017, and that the Company's stock price dropped upon thepurported disclosure of the misrepresentations. Defendant's movedto dismiss the Amended Complaint on September 12, 2017.

Alexion Pharmaceuticals said "Given the early stages of thislitigation, management does not currently believe that a lossrelated to this matter is probable or that the potentialmagnitude of such loss or range of loss, if any, can bereasonably estimated."

Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a global biopharmaceuticalcompany focused on serving patients and families affected by rarediseases through the innovation, development andcommercialization of life-changing therapies. The company isbased in New Haven, Connecticut.

According to the complaint, the Defendants pay their tailors oncommission or on hourly wage basis. The Plaintiff and the membersof the putative class regularly worked in excess of 40 hours inany given week, however they were not compensated for all thehours worked and were not paid overtime compensation pursuant tothe New York Labor Law. In addition, Defendants maintained apolicy and practice of paying its tailors commissions at a ratelower than the rate promised and unlawfully deducting earnedwages from Plaintiffs' last paycheck.

Alteration Specialists of New York offers custom tailoringservices in New York City.[BN]

ALTRIA GROUP: 7 Engle Progeny Cases Set for Trial Thru Dec. 31--------------------------------------------------------------Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2017, that as of October 23, 2017, seven Engleprogeny cases are set for trial through December 31, 2017.

There are no other individual smoking and health cases and no"Lights/Ultra Lights" class actions against Philip Morris USA setfor trial during this period. Cases against other companies inthe tobacco industry may be scheduled for trial during thisperiod. Trial dates are subject to change.

Since January 1999, excluding the Engle progeny cases, verdictshave been returned in 62 smoking and health, "Lights/UltraLights" and health care cost recovery cases in which PM USA was adefendant. Verdicts in favor of PM USA and other defendants werereturned in 41 of the 62 cases. These 41 cases were tried inAlaska (1), California (7), Florida (10), Louisiana (1),Massachusetts (2), Mississippi (1), Missouri (4), New Hampshire(1), New Jersey (1), New York (5), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (1),Rhode Island (1), Tennessee (2) and West Virginia (2). A motionfor a new trial was granted in one of the cases in Florida and inthe case in Alaska. In the Alaska case (Hunter), the trial courtwithdrew its order for a new trial upon PM USA's motion forreconsideration.

In December 2015, the Alaska Supreme Court reversed the trialcourt decision and remanded the case with directions for thetrial court to reassess whether to grant a new trial. In March2016, the trial court granted a new trial and PM USA filed apetition for review of that order with the Alaska Supreme Court,which the court denied in July 2016. The retrial began in October2016. In November 2016, the court declared a mistrial after thejury failed to reach a verdict. The plaintiff subsequently movedfor a new trial. In October 2017, the trial court vacated theOctober 16, 2017 trial date. A new date for trial has not beenset.

Of the 21 non-Engle progeny cases in which verdicts were returnedin favor of plaintiffs, 18 have reached final resolution.

As of October 23, 2017, 114 state and federal Engle progeny casesinvolving PM USA have resulted in verdicts since the FloridaSupreme Court's Engle decision as follows: 62 verdicts werereturned in favor of plaintiffs; 45 verdicts were returned infavor of PM USA. Five verdicts that were initially returned infavor of plaintiff were reversed post-trial or on appeal andremain pending and two verdicts in favor of PM USA were reversedfor a new trial. See Smoking and Health Litigation - EngleProgeny Trial Court Results below for a discussion of theseverdicts.

After exhausting all appeals in those cases resulting in adverseverdicts associated with tobacco-related litigation, sinceOctober 2004, PM USA has paid in the aggregate judgments andsettlements (including related costs and fees) totalingapproximately $490 million and interest totaling approximately$184 million as of September 30, 2017. These amounts includepayments for Engle progeny judgments (and related costs and fees)totaling approximately $99 million, interest totalingapproximately $22 million and payment of approximately $43million in connection with the Federal Engle Agreement.

Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures andsells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the UnitedStates. The company sells its tobacco products primarily towholesalers, including distributors; large retail organizations,such as chain stores; and the armed services. Altria Group, Inc.was founded in 1919 and is based in Richmond, Virginia.

ALTRIA GROUP: Smoking and Health Class Suits in Canada Underway--------------------------------------------------------------Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2017, that the company continues to defend itselfin seven smoking and health class actions filed in variousCanadian provinces.

As of October 23, 2017, PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. are namedas defendants, along with other cigarette manufacturers, in sevenclass actions filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta,Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia andOntario. In Saskatchewan, British Columbia (two separate cases)and Ontario, plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf ofindividuals who suffer or have suffered from various diseases,including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heartdisease or cancer, after smoking defendants' cigarettes.

In the actions filed in Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia,plaintiffs seek certification of classes of all individuals whosmoked defendants' cigarettes.

Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures andsells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the UnitedStates. The company sells its tobacco products primarily towholesalers, including distributors; large retail organizations,such as chain stores; and the armed services. Altria Group, Inc.was founded in 1919 and is based in Richmond, Virginia.

ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Still Faces 4 Lights & Ultra Lights Suits--------------------------------------------------------------Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2017, that as of October 23, 2017, Philip MorrisUSA, the company or its other subsidiaries continues to defend atotal of four class action cases that are pending in various U.S.state courts.

Plaintiffs in certain pending matters seek certification of theircases as class actions and allege, among other things, that theuses of the terms "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitutedeceptive and unfair trade practices, common law or statutoryfraud, unjust enrichment or breach of warranty, and seekinjunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, incertain cases, punitive damages. These class actions have beenbrought against PM USA and, in certain instances, Altria Group,Inc. or its other subsidiaries, on behalf of individuals whopurchased and consumed various brands of cigarettes, includingMarlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights, Virginia Slims Lights andSuperslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge Lights.

Defenses raised in these cases include lack of misrepresentation,lack of causation, injury and damages, the statute oflimitations, non-liability under state statutory provisionsexempting conduct that complies with federal regulatorydirectives, and the First Amendment.

As of October 23, 2017, a total of four such cases are pending invarious U.S. state courts.

Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures andsells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the UnitedStates. The company sells its tobacco products primarily towholesalers, including distributors; large retail organizations,such as chain stores; and the armed services. Altria Group, Inc.was founded in 1919 and is based in Richmond, Virginia.

ALTRIA GROUP: Oral Argument Heard in "Larsen" Case Appeal---------------------------------------------------------Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2017, that the Missouri Court of Appeals heard oralargument on plaintiffs' appeal on August 8, 2017.

In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the classcertification order. In December 2009, the trial court deniedplaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the period during whichpotential class members can qualify to become part of the class.The class period remains 1995-2003. In June 2010, Philip MorrisUSA's motion for partial summary judgment regarding plaintiffs'request for punitive damages was denied. In April 2010,plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to an element ofliability in the case, claiming collateral estoppel from thefindings in the case brought by the Department of Justice. Theplaintiffs' motion was denied in December 2010.

In June 2011, PM USA filed various summary judgment motionschallenging the plaintiffs' claims. In August 2011, the trialcourt granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment,ruling that plaintiffs could not present a damages claim based onallegations that Marlboro Lights are more dangerous than MarlboroReds. The trial court denied PM USA's remaining summary judgmentmotions. Trial in the case began in September 2011 and, inOctober 2011, the court declared a mistrial after the jury failedto reach a verdict. In January 2014, the trial court reversed itsprior ruling granting partial summary judgment againstplaintiffs' "more dangerous" claim and allowed plaintiffs topursue that claim.

In October 2014, PM USA filed motions to decertify the class andfor partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' "more dangerous"claim, which the court denied in June 2015. Upon retrial, inApril 2016, the jury returned a verdict in favor of PM USA. InAugust 2016, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and PM USAcross-appealed. In November 2016, the court of appeals dismissedPM USA's cross-appeal without prejudice upon joint motion of theparties. Oral argument at the Missouri Court of Appeals occurredAugust 8, 2017.

Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures andsells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the UnitedStates. The company sells its tobacco products primarily towholesalers, including distributors; large retail organizations,such as chain stores; and the armed services. Altria Group, Inc.was founded in 1919 and is based in Richmond, Virginia.

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Antitrust Suits and DOJ Probe Still Ongoing--------------------------------------------------------------American Airlines, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2017, that the company continues to defenditself in a class action suit filed in the Federal District Courtfor the District of Columbia.

In June 2015, American received a Civil Investigative Demand(CID) from the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) as partof an investigation into whether there have been illegalagreements or coordination of air passenger capacity. The CIDseeks documents and other information from American, and otherairlines have announced that they have received similar requests.American is cooperating fully with the DOJ investigation.

In addition, subsequent to announcement of the delivery of CIDsby the DOJ, American, along with Delta Air Lines, Inc., SouthwestAirlines Co., United Airlines, Inc. and, in the case oflitigation filed in Canada, Air Canada, have been named asdefendants in approximately 100 putative class action lawsuitsalleging unlawful agreements with respect to air passengercapacity. The U.S. lawsuits have been consolidated in the FederalDistrict Court for the District of Columbia. On October 28, 2016,the Court denied a motion by the airline defendants to dismissall claims in the class actions.

American Airlines said "Both the DOJ investigation and theselawsuits are in their relatively early stages and Americanintends to defend these matters vigorously."

American Airlines, Inc. operates as a network air carrier. Thecompany provides scheduled air transportation services forpassengers and cargo. It also offers freight and mail services.The company is based in Fort Worth, Texas.

ANTHEM INC: Cross Motions for Partial Summary Judgment Pending--------------------------------------------------------------Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2017, that cross motions for partial summaryjudgment in an Alabama antitrust suit were heard by the Court inOctober 2017, and they remain pending.

The company is a defendant in multiple lawsuits that wereinitially filed in 2012 against the BCBSA as well as Blue Crossand/or Blue Shield licensees across the country. The cases wereconsolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In reBlue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation that is pending inthe United States District Court for the Northern District ofAlabama, or the Court. Generally, the suits allege that the BCBSAand the Blue plans have engaged in a conspiracy to horizontallyallocate geographic markets through license agreements, bestefforts rules (which limit the percentage of non-Blue revenue ofeach plan), restrictions on acquisitions, rules governing theBlueCard and National Accounts programs and other arrangements inviolation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and related state laws.

The cases were brought by two putative nationwide classes ofplaintiffs, health plan subscribers and providers. Subscriber andprovider plaintiffs each filed consolidated amended complaints inJuly 2013. The consolidated amended subscriber complaint was alsobrought on behalf of putative state classes of health plansubscribers in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii,Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, NewHampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, SouthCarolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Defendants filed motions todismiss in September 2013. In June 2014, the Court denied themajority of the motions, ruling that plaintiffs had allegedsufficient facts at that stage of the litigation to avoiddismissal of their claims. Following the subsequent filing ofamended complaints by each of the subscriber and providerplaintiffs, we filed our answer and asserted our affirmativedefenses in December 2014.

Since January 2016, subscribers have filed additional actionsasserting damage claims in Indiana, Kansas, Kansas City,Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, SouthDakota, Vermont, and Virginia, all of which have beenconsolidated into the multi-district lawsuit. In November 2016and April 2017, subscriber plaintiffs and provider plaintiffsfiled new consolidated amended complaints adding new namedplaintiffs and new factual allegations.

The company filed answers to the amended complaints in May 2017.In February 2017, the Court granted in part defendants' motionfor summary judgment based on the filed rate doctrine findingthat the damages claims of certain named Alabama subscribers arebarred under federal law. Subscribers filed a motion toreconsider the Court's order, which was denied without prejudiceto plaintiffs' right to raise the issue at a later date. In April2017, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed alower court ruling in a related declaratory judgment action,Musselman v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, et al., thatthe antitrust conspiracy claims being asserted by a subset ofputative provider class members were released a decade ago byclass action settlements in the In re Managed Care Litigation. InJune 2017, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss certainof the claims in provider plaintiffs' latest consolidatedcomplaint.

Briefing on the relevant standard of review for the claimsasserted under the Sherman Antitrust Act commenced in July 2017.Cross motions for partial summary judgment on the relevantstandard of review were heard by the Court in October 2017, andthey remain pending. In August 2017, provider plaintiffs movedfor partial summary judgment against Anthem on the basis ofcollateral estoppel on several issues discussed in United Statesv. Anthem, Inc., 236 F. Supp. 3d 171 (D.D.C. 2017). That motionwas heard in October 2017, and is pending. No dates have been setfor either the pretrial conference or trials in these actions.

Anthem, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a healthbenefits company in the United States. It operates through threesegments: Commercial and Specialty Business, Government Business,and Other. The Company offers a spectrum of network-basedmanaged care health benefit plans to large and small employer,individual, Medicaid, and Medicare markets. The Company wasformerly known as WellPoint, Inc. and changed its name to Anthem,Inc. in December 2014. Anthem, Inc. was founded in 1944 and isheadquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.

ANTHEM INC: Bid to Dismiss ERISA Class Suit Still Pending---------------------------------------------------------Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2017, that the company filed in April 2017 a motionto dismiss claims brought against it in an ERISA class actionlawsuit but the same remains pending.

Anthem, Inc. and Express Scripts were named as defendants in apurported class action lawsuit filed in June 2016 in the SouthernDistrict of New York by three members of ERISA plans allegingERISA violations captioned Karen Burnett, Brendan Farrell, andRobert Shullich, individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. Express Scripts, Inc. and Anthem, Inc. Thelawsuit was then consolidated with a similar lawsuit that waspreviously filed against Express Scripts.

A first amended consolidated complaint was filed in theconsolidated lawsuit, which is captioned In Re ExpressScripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation. The first amended consolidatedcomplaint was filed by six individual plaintiffs against Anthemand Express Scripts on behalf of all persons who are participantsin or beneficiaries of any ERISA or non-ERISA health care planfrom December 1, 2009 to the present in which Anthem providedprescription drug benefits through a PBM Agreement with ExpressScripts and who paid a percentage based co-insurance payment inthe course of using that prescription drug benefit. As to theERISA members, the plaintiffs allege that Anthem breached itsduties under ERISA (i) by failing to adequately monitor ExpressScripts' pricing under the PBM Agreement and (ii) by placing itsown pecuniary interest above the best interests of Antheminsureds by allegedly agreeing to higher pricing in the PBMAgreement in exchange for the $4,675.0 purchase price for ourNextRx PBM business. As to the non-ERISA members, the plaintiffsassert that Anthem breached the implied covenant of good faithand fair dealing implied in the health plans under which the non-ERISA members are covered by (i) negotiating and entering intothe PBM Agreement with Express Scripts that was detrimental tothe interests of such non-ERISA members, (ii) failing toadequately monitor the activities of Express Scripts, includingfailing to timely monitor and correct the prices charged byExpress Scripts for prescription medications, and (iii) acting inAnthem's self-interests instead of the interests of the non-ERISAmembers when it accepted the $4,675.0 purchase price for NextRx.

Plaintiffs seek to hold Anthem and Express Scripts jointly andseverally liable and to recover all losses suffered by theproposed class, equitable relief, disgorgement of alleged ill-gotten gains, injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs andinterest. In November 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss all ofthe claims brought against Anthem. In response, in March 2017,the plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaintadding two self-insured accounts as plaintiffs and asserting anadditional purported class of self-insured accounts. In April2017, the compan filed a motion to dismiss the claims broughtagainst Anthem. Our motion remains pending. In January 2017,Express Scripts filed a motion to transfer the case to a federalcourt in Missouri, which the court denied.

Anthem, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a healthbenefits company in the United States. It operates through threesegments: Commercial and Specialty Business, Government Business,and Other. The Company offers a spectrum of network-basedmanaged care health benefit plans to large and small employer,individual, Medicaid, and Medicare markets. The Company wasformerly known as WellPoint, Inc. and changed its name to Anthem,Inc. in December 2014. Anthem, Inc. was founded in 1944 and isheadquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.

According to the complaint, despite Plaintiffs' status asindependent contractors, Defendants dictated Plaintiffs' workhours, assignments, revisions to their assignments, and theirplanned routes. The Defendants controlled significant aspects ofPlaintiffs' operation of the vans, yet required Plaintiffs topurchase their vans from Defendants and pay for their owninsurance, fuel, and damage. Moreover, Defendants deduct $50 froma driver's pay when a driver refuses a route. The designation ofthe drivers as independent contractors was and is clearlyimproper because drivers lack the requisite control anddiscretion over their job responsibilities and duties to deservetreatment as independent contractors.

Defendants clearly intentionally misclassified Plaintiffs andmembers of the Plaintiff Class. In addition to wrongfulmisclassification, Plaintiffs allege in this lawsuit thatPlaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class were not providedwith lawful meal and rest periods as required by California statelaw. The Plaintiffs further alleges that they were required towork off-the-clock, which violates state minimum wage laws, andthat they were not reimbursed for all business related expenses,such as expenses related to passengers' invalid credit cards orno shows, maintenance of the trucks, mileage, gas, and otherexpenses which are weekly deducted from drivers' pay, among otherclaims.[BN]

ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Bid to Drop Merger Suit Underway----------------------------------------------------Armour Residential REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2017, that the company awaits thecourt's decision on its motion to dismiss a class action lawsuitrelated to a tender offer and merger for Javelin.

Nine putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connectionwith the tender offer (the "Tender Offer") and merger (the"Merger") for JAVELIN. The Tender Offer and Merger arecollectively defined herein as the "Transactions." All nine suitsname ARMOUR, the previous members of JAVELIN's board of directorsprior to the Merger (of which eight are current members ofARMOUR's board of directors) (the "Individual Defendants") andJMI Acquisition Corporation ("Acquisition") as defendants.

Certain cases also name ACM and JAVELIN as additional defendants.The lawsuits were brought by purported holders of JAVELIN'scommon stock, both individually and on behalf of a putative classof JAVELIN's stockholders, alleging that the IndividualDefendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffsand the putative class of JAVELIN stockholders, including claimsthat the Individual Defendants failed to properly value JAVELIN;failed to take steps to maximize the value of JAVELIN to itsstockholders; ignored or failed to protect against conflicts ofinterest; failed to disclose material information about theTransactions; took steps to avoid competitive bidding and to giveARMOUR an unfair advantage by failing to adequately solicit otherpotential acquirors or alternative transactions; and erectedunreasonable barriers to other third-party bidders. The suitsalso allege that ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and Acquisition aided andabetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by theIndividual Defendants. The lawsuits seek equitable relief,including, among other relief, to enjoin consummation of theTransactions, or rescind or unwind the Transactions if alreadyconsummated, and award costs and disbursements, includingreasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.

The sole Florida lawsuit was never served on the defendants, andthat case was voluntarily dismissed and closed on January 20,2017. On April 25, 2016, the Maryland court issued an orderconsolidating the eight Maryland cases into one action, captionedIn re JAVELIN Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder Litigation(Case No. 24-C-16-001542), and designated counsel for one of theMaryland cases as interim lead co-counsel. On May 26, 2016,interim lead counsel filed the Consolidated Amended Class ActionComplaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty asserting consolidatedclaims of breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting thebreaches of fiduciary duty, and waste. On June 27, 2016,defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated AmendedClass Action Complaint for failing to state a claim upon whichrelief can be granted. A hearing was held on the Motion toDismiss on March 3, 2017, and the Court reserved ruling. To date,the Court has not issued an order on the Motion to Dismiss.

ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc. invests in residential mortgagebacked securities in the United States. It is managed by ARMOURCapital Management LP. The Company was founded in 2008 and isbased in Vero Beach, Florida.

Subsequent to the announcement on July 20, 2017, of the MergerAgreement between the Corporation and Bank Mutual, severallawsuits were filed in connection with the proposed merger.

On July 28, 2017, two substantially identical purported classaction complaints, each by various individual plaintiffs, werefiled with the Wisconsin Circuit Court for Milwaukee County onbehalf of the respective named plaintiffs and other Bank Mutualshareholders against Bank Mutual, the members of the Bank Mutualboard, and the Corporation. The lawsuits are captioned Schumel etal v. Bank Mutual Corporation et al. and Paquin et al. v. BankMutual Corporation et al. Both complaints allege state law breachof fiduciary duty claims against the Bank Mutual board for, amongother things, seeking to sell Bank Mutual through an allegedlydefective process, for an allegedly unfair price and on allegedlyunfair terms.

On August 30, 2017, a third purported class action complaint,captioned Wollenburg et al. v. Bank Mutual Corporation et al.,was filed in the Wisconsin Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, onbehalf of the same class of shareholders and against the samedefendants as the prior two complaints. The Wollenburg complaintasserts similar allegations as the prior two complaints, andfurther alleges that the preliminary proxy statement/prospectusfiled with the SEC contains various alleged misstatements oromissions under federal securities law. The Paquin, Schumel andWollenburg complaints allege that the Corporation aided andabetted Bank Mutual's directors' alleged breaches of fiduciaryduty. The parties have entered into a stipulation seeking toconsolidate the three actions.

On September 13, 2017, the Corporation filed a notice of removalof the Paquin, Schumel and Wollenburg actions to the UnitedStates District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. OnSeptember 15, 2017, the plaintiffs in the Paquin, Schumel andWollenburg actions filed identical motions to remand the threecases back to state court, and on September 27, 2017, thedefendants filed oppositions to the motions to remand.

On October 3, 2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss thethree actions.

On September 6, 2017, a fourth purported class action complaint,captioned Parshall et al., v. Bank Mutual Corporation et al., wasfiled in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District ofWisconsin, on behalf of the same class of shareholders andagainst the same defendants as the prior complaints.

The Parshall complaint criticizes the adequacy of the mergerconsideration and alleges that Bank Mutual, the members of theBank Mutual board and the Corporation allegedly omitted and/ormisrepresented certain information in the registration statementon Form S-4 filed in connection with the proposed merger inviolation of the federal securities laws. The lawsuits seek,among other things, to enjoin the consummation of the transactionand damages. The Corporation believes the allegations are withoutmerit.

On October 13, 2017, Bank Mutual and the Corporation reachedagreement with the plaintiffs in each of the four cases wherebyBank Mutual issued certain additional disclosures in a Form 8-K,and each of the plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss their actionswith prejudice as to the named plaintiffs and without prejudiceas to the rest of the purported class members.

Associated Banc-Corp said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission that Associated, Bank Mutualand the other defendants believe that the claims asserted in thelawsuits are without merit and that the disclosures in the ProxyStatement/Prospectus are adequate under the law. However, toavoid the risk that the lawsuits may delay or otherwise adverselyaffect the consummation of the Merger and to minimize the expenseof defending such actions, Associated and Bank Mutual wish tovoluntarily make the Supplemental Disclosures related to theMerger set forth below. Associated and Bank Mutual specificallydeny that any further disclosure is required to supplement theProxy Statement/Prospectus under applicable law.

In light of the Supplemental Disclosures, the plaintiffs in thelawsuits have agreed to dismiss their individual claims withprejudice.

A copy of the company's supplemental disclosure is available athttps://goo.gl/NXEeg8

The Plaintiff's primary duties were as a food runner, expediter,busser, and cleaner, and performing other miscellaneous dutiesfrom April 2017 until July 2017. The Plaintiff has worked 54-61hours or more per week for Defendants from April 2017 to July2017. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half forhours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtimeprovisions contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act and New YorkLabor Law.[BN]

BOBCAT COMPANY: Faces Autumn Suit Over Defective Track Loaders--------------------------------------------------------------Autumn Ridge Landscaping, Inc., individually and on behalf of allothers similarly situated v. Bobcat Company, Case No. 0:17-cv-05343-MJD-BRT (D. Minn., December 4, 2017), is an action ofdamages and equitable relief on behalf of the Class, each of whompurchased and leased one or more of the defectively designed andmanufactured Bobcat Compact Track Loaders.

The defect at issue is Bobcat's failure to include a standard andeffective metal shield in their Class Loaders, which, ifinstalled, would provide a solid and durable buffer between therapidly spinning drive belts within the engine of the Loader andthe hydraulic, fuel filler, and fuel distribution lines which runalong the outside of the engine.

Bobcat Company currently manufactures and sells three types ofloaders -- Skid-Steer Loaders, Compact Track Loaders and MiniTrack Loaders -- designed to assist workers such as constructionand farm workers with moving heavy materials such as asphalt,dirt, and feed through the use of a tractor-mounted loader. [BN]

BOFI HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Action Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------BofI Holding, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2017, that the company continues to defend itselfin a consolidated class action suit filed in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Southern District of California.

On October 15, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer andits Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putativeclass action lawsuit styled Golden v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al,and brought in United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of California (the "Golden Case"). On November 3, 2015,the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief FinancialOfficer were named defendants in a second putative class actionlawsuit styled Hazan v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al, and alsobrought in the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of California (the "Hazan Case"). On February 1, 2016,the Golden Case and the Hazan Case were consolidated as In reBofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case #: 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC (the "First Class Action"), and the Houston MunicipalEmployees Pension System was appointed lead plaintiff. The FirstClass Action complaint was amended by a certain ConsolidatedAmended Class Complaint filed on April 11, 2016. On September 27,2016, the Court dismissed the First Class Action, with leave toamend, as to defendants Andrew Micheletti, Paul Grinberg,Nicholas Mosich and James Argalas. The Court denied the Motion toDismiss with respect to the Company and Gregory Garrabrants. OnNovember 25, 2016, the putative class action plaintiff filed aSecond Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Second AmendedComplaint"), which includes the previously dismissed defendants.

On December 23, 2016, the Company and other defendants filed amotion to dismiss such Second Amended Complaint. On May 23, 2017,the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants;motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On September 28,2017, the Company and other defendants filed a motion forjudgment on the pleadings, which is currently pending.

The First Class Action seeks monetary damages and other relief onbehalf of a putative class that has not been certified by theCourt. The Second Amended Complaint alleges that the Company andother named defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgatedthereunder, by failing to disclose wrongful conduct that wasalleged in a complaint filed in connection with a wrongfultermination of employment lawsuit filed on October 13, 2015 (the"Employment Matter") and that as a result the Company'sstatements regarding its internal controls, as well as portionsof its financial statements, were false and misleading. TheCompany and the other defendants named in the Employment Matterdispute the allegations of wrongdoing advanced by the plaintiffin that case, including plaintiff's statement of the underlyingfactual circumstances, and are vigorously defending against thecomplaint filed in connection therewith. Moreover, the Companyand the other named defendants dispute the allegations advancedby the plaintiffs in the First Class Action and are vigorouslydefending against the Second Amended Complaint.

On April 3, 2017, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer andits Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putativeclass action lawsuit styled Mandalevy v. BofI Holding, Inc., etal, and brought in United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of California (the "Mandalevy Case"). The Mandalevy Caseseeks monetary damages and other relief on behalf of a putativeclass that has not been certified by the Court. The complaint inthe Mandalevy Case (the "Mandalevy Complaint") alleges a classperiod that differs from that alleged in the First Class Action,and that the Company and other named defendants violated Sections10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose wrongfulconduct that was alleged in a March 2017 media article. TheMandalevy Case has not been consolidated into the First ClassAction. On June 2, 2017, lead plaintiff motions were filed onbehalf of three members of the putative class and on July 17,2017, the Company and other defendants filed an opposition tosuch motions. The Mandalevy Complaint has yet to be served uponthe Company or the other named defendants. The Company and theother named defendants dispute the allegations advanced by theplaintiffs in the Mandalevy Case, and are vigorously defendingagainst the Mandalevy Complaint.

BofI Holding, Inc. operates as the holding company for BofIFederal Bank that provides consumer and business banking productsin the United States. The Company offers deposits products,including consumer and business checking, demand, savings, andtime deposit accounts. BofI Holding, Inc. was incorporated in1999 and is based in San Diego, California.

BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Bid to Drop 3rd "Zamir" Complaint Pending----------------------------------------------------------------Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2017, that the plaintiffs in the caseentitled Zamir v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., et al., filed athird amended complaint and the defendants filed a third motionto dismiss which is pending in the U.S. District Court for theSouthern District of California.

On February 24, 2015, a securities class action complaint wasfiled in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District ofCalifornia by Nelda Zamir naming the Company, Andrew Clark andDaniel Devine as defendants. The complaint asserts violations ofSections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5promulgated thereunder, claiming that the defendants made falseand materially misleading statements and failed to disclosematerial adverse facts regarding the Company's business,operations and prospects, specifically regarding the Company'simproper application of revenue recognition methodology to assesscollectability of funds owed by students. The complaint asserts aputative class period stemming from August 7, 2012 to May 30,2014 and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest andattorneys' fees. On July 15, 2015, the Court granted plaintiff'smotion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for appointment oflead counsel.

On September 18, 2015, the plaintiff filed a substantiallysimilar amended complaint that asserts a putative class periodstemming from March 12, 2013 to May 30, 2014. The amendedcomplaint also names Patrick Hackett, Adarsh Sarma, WarburgPincus & Co., Warburg Pincus LLC, Warburg Pincus Partners LLC,and Warburg Pincus Private Equity VIII, L.P. as additionaldefendants. On November 24, 2015, all defendants filed motions todismiss. On July 25, 2016, the Court granted the motions todismiss and granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaintwithin 30 days. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a second amendedcomplaint and the Company filed a second motion to dismiss onOctober 24, 2016, which was granted by the Court with leave toamend. Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on April 19,2017 and the defendants filed a third motion to dismiss, which iscurrently pending with the court.

Bridgepoint said "The outcome of this legal proceeding isuncertain at this point because of the many questions of fact andlaw that may arise. The Company has not accrued any liabilityassociated with this action."

Bridgepoint Education, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,provides postsecondary education services. Its academicinstitutions, Ashford University and University of the Rockies,offer associate's, bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degreeprograms in the disciplines of business, education, psychology,social sciences, and health sciences. The company offers itsprograms primarily through online; and at its campuses. Thecompany was formerly known as TeleUniversity, Inc. and changedits name to Bridgepoint Education, Inc. in February 2004. Thecompany was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in San Diego,California.

BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Discovery Underway in "Nieder" Class Suit----------------------------------------------------------------Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2017, that the case Dustin Nieder v.Ashford University, LLC, which was filed in the Superior Court ofthe State of California in San Diego, is currently in discovery.

On October 4, 2016, Dustin Nieder filed a purported class actionagainst Ashford University in the Superior Court of the State ofCalifornia in San Diego. The complaint is captioned Dustin Niederv. Ashford University, LLC and generally alleges various wage andhour claims under California law for failure to pay overtime,failure to pay minimum wages and failure to provide rest and mealbreaks. The lawsuit seeks back pay, the cost of benefits,penalties and interest on behalf of the putative class members,as well as other equitable relief and attorneys' fees. TheCompany filed an answer denying the claims and the case iscurrently in discovery.

Bridgepoint "The outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain atthis point because of the many questions of fact and law that mayarise. Based on information available to the Company at present,it cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action.Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability associatedwith this action."

Bridgepoint Education, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,provides postsecondary education services. Its academicinstitutions, Ashford University and University of the Rockies,offer associate's, bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degreeprograms in the disciplines of business, education, psychology,social sciences, and health sciences. The company offers itsprograms primarily through online; and at its campuses. Thecompany was formerly known as TeleUniversity, Inc. and changedits name to Bridgepoint Education, Inc. in February 2004. Thecompany was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in San Diego,California.

BUFFALO WILD: New York Employee Class Action Suit Underway----------------------------------------------------------Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly periodended September 24, 2017, that the plaintiffs in a putative classaction suit filed in the United States District Court for theWestern District of New York, amended their complaint to includeputative class action claims under the laws of seven additionalstates: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Pennsylvaniaand Wisconsin.

The Company said, "On June 2, 2015, two of our former employees(the "plaintiffs") filed a collective action under the Fair LaborStandards Act ("FLSA") and putative class action under New Yorkstate law against us in the United States District Court for theWestern District of New York. The claim alleges that we have apolicy or procedure requiring employees who receive compensationin part through tip credits to perform work that is ineligiblefor tip credit compensation at a tip credit rate in violation ofthe FLSA and New York state law. On September 27, 2016, theplaintiffs amended their complaint to include putative classaction claims under the laws of seven additional states: Arizona,Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."

Added Buffalo Wild Wings, "We intend to vigorously defend thislawsuit. We believe there is a reasonable possibility of lossrelated to these claims; however, we are currently unable todetermine the potential range of exposure, if any."

Buffalo Wild Wings is an American casual dining restaurant andsports bar franchise in the United States, Canada, Mexico, thePhilippines, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Oman,which specializes in Buffalo wings and sauces. The company isbased in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

CELGENE CORP: IUB Class Action Suit in New Jersey Underway----------------------------------------------------------Celgene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2017, that the company continues to defend itselfin a class action lawsuit filed by the International Union ofBricklayers and Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund (IUB).

The Company said, "On November 7, 2014, the International Unionof Bricklayers and Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund (IUB)filed a putative class action lawsuit against us in the UnitedStates District Court for the District of New Jersey allegingthat we violated various antitrust, consumer protection, andunfair competition laws by (a) allegedly securing an exclusivesupply contract with Seratec S.A.R.L. so that Barr Laboratoriesallegedly could not secure its own supply of thalidomide activepharmaceutical ingredient; (b) allegedly refusing to sell samplesof our THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R) brand drugs to various genericmanufacturers for the alleged purpose of bioequivalence testingnecessary for ANDAs to be submitted to the FDA for approval tomarket generic versions of these products; and (c) allegedlybringing unjustified patent infringement lawsuits in order toallegedly delay approval for proposed generic versions ofTHALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R). IUB, on behalf of itself and aputative class of third party payers, is seeking injunctiverelief and damages."

"In February 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss IUB's complaint,and upon the filing of a similar putative class action makingsimilar allegations by the City of Providence (Providence), theparties agreed that the decision in the motion to dismiss IUB'scomplaint would apply to the identical claims in Providence'scomplaint. In October 2015, the court denied our motion todismiss on all grounds.

"The company filed its answers to the IUB and Providencecomplaints in January 2016. On June 14, 2017, a new complaint wasfiled by the same counsel representing the plaintiffs in the IUBcase, making similar allegations and adding three new plaintiffs-- International Union of Operating Engineers StationaryEngineers Local 39 Health and Welfare Trust Fund (Local 39), TheDetectives' Endowment Association, Inc. (DEA) and David Mitchell.

"Counsel identified the new complaint as related to the IUB andProvidence cases and, on August 1, 2017, filed a ConsolidatedAmended complaint on behalf of IUB, Providence, Local 39, DEA,and Mitchell. On September 28, 2017, the same counsel filedanother complaint, which it identified as related to theconsolidated case, and which made similar allegations on behalfof an additional asserted class representative: New EnglandCarpenters Health Benefits Fund. The completion of fact discoveryand expert discovery in these cases is scheduled for April 2,2018 and September 13, 2018, respectively. No trial date has beenset."

Celgene added "We intend to vigorously defend against theseclaims."

Celgene Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is anintegrated global biopharmaceutical company engaged primarily inthe discovery, development and commercialization of innovativetherapies for the treatment of cancer and inflammatory diseasesthrough next-generation solutions in protein homeostasis, immuno-oncology, epigenetics, immunology and neuro-inflammation. Thecompany is based in Summit, New Jersey.

CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Muransky" Suit Seeks to Certify Class----------------------------------------------------------In the lawsuit styled DR. DAVID S. MURANSKY, the Plaintiff, v.THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY, INC., d/b/a THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY, aDelaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-07569-CJC-RAO (C.D. Cal.), Mr. Muransky will move the Court on January 22,2018, for an order certifying this action to proceed as a class.

CHICO'S FAS: "Altman" Class Action Suit Ongoing-----------------------------------------------Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedJuly 29, 2017, that the company continues to defend itself in thecase entitled Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc.

In July 2015, White House Black Market, Inc. (WHBM) was named asa defendant in Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc., aputative class action filed in the United States District Courtfor the Northern District of Georgia. The complaint alleges thatWHBM, in violation of federal law, willfully published more thanthe last five digits of a credit or debit card number oncustomers' point-of-sale receipts. Plaintiff seeks an award ofstatutory damages of $100 to $1,000 for each alleged willfulviolation of the law, as well as attorneys' fees, costs andpunitive damages.

The Company denies the material allegations of the complaint andbelieves the case is without merit. The Court denied theCompany's motion to dismiss on July 13, 2016, and the partieshave engaged in extensive discovery since then. Plaintiff filed amotion for class certification in May 2017, which WHBM opposed ina brief filed in June 2017.

Chico's FAS said "The Company will continue to vigorously defendthe matter, including a planned motion for summary judgment todismiss all claims. At this time, the Company is unable toreasonably estimate the potential loss or range of loss, if any,related to the lawsuit because there are a number of unknownfacts and unresolved legal issues that may impact the amount ofany potential liability, including, without limitation, (a)whether the action will be permitted to proceed as a class, (b)if a class is certified, the resolution of certain disputedstatutory interpretation issues that may impact the size of theputative class and (c) whether or not the plaintiff is entitledto statutory damages."

Chico's FAS, Inc. is a leading omni-channel specialty retailer ofwomen's private branded, sophisticated, casual-to-dressyclothing, intimates and complementary accessories, operatingunder the Chico's, White House Black Market ("WHBM") and Somabrand names. The company earns revenues and generates cashthrough the sale of merchandise in their domestic andinternational retail stores, their various websites and theircall centers, which takes orders for all of our brands, andthrough an unaffiliated franchise partner in Mexico.

CHICO'S FAS: De Minimis Deal in "Ackerman" Suit Okayed------------------------------------------------------Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedJuly 29, 2017, that the parties in the case entitled Ackerman v.Chico's FAS, Inc., entered into a settlement agreement, and thecourt issued a final approval and entry of judgment on June 5,2017.

In June 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in Ackerman v.Chico's FAS, Inc., a putative representative Private AttorneyGeneral action filed in the Superior Court of California, Countyof Los Angeles. The complaint alleged numerous violations ofCalifornia law related to wages, meal periods, rest periods, wagestatements and failure to reimburse business expenses, amongother things. Plaintiff subsequently amended her complaint tomake the same allegations on a class action basis. The partiesentered into a settlement agreement, and the Court issued finalapproval and entry of judgment on June 5, 2017. The settlementdid not have a material adverse effect on the Company'sconsolidated financial condition or results of operations.

Chico's FAS, Inc. is a leading omni-channel specialty retailer ofwomen's private branded, sophisticated, casual-to-dressyclothing, intimates and complementary accessories, operatingunder the Chico's, White House Black Market ("WHBM") and Somabrand names. The company earns revenues and generates cashthrough the sale of merchandise in their domestic andinternational retail stores, their various websites and theircall centers, which takes orders for all of our brands, andthrough an unaffiliated franchise partner in Mexico.

CHICO'S FAS: De Minimis Deal in "Calleros" Suit Okayed------------------------------------------------------Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedJuly 29, 2017, that the parties in the case entitled Calleros v.Chico's FAS, Inc., entered into a settlement agreement, which wasapproved by the court on July 25, 2017.

In July 2016, the company was named as a defendant in Calleros v.Chico's FAS, Inc., a putative class action filed in the SuperiorCourt of California, County of Santa Barbara. Plaintiff allegedthat the Company failed to comply with California law requiringit to provide consumers cash for gift cards with a stored valueof less than $10.00. Following voluntary mediation of the matterin November of 2016, the parties entered into a settlementagreement, which was approved by the court on July 25, 2017. Thesettlement will not have a material adverse effect on theCompany's consolidated financial condition or results ofoperations.

Chico's FAS, Inc. is a leading omni-channel specialty retailer ofwomen's private branded, sophisticated, casual-to-dressyclothing, intimates and complementary accessories, operatingunder the Chico's, White House Black Market ("WHBM") and Somabrand names. The company earns revenues and generates cashthrough the sale of merchandise in their domestic andinternational retail stores, their various websites and theircall centers, which takes orders for all of our brands, andthrough an unaffiliated franchise partner in Mexico.

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Class Suits by 2 Credit Unions Consolidated-------------------------------------------------------------Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2017, that the purported class actioncomplaints filed by Bellwether Community Credit Union and AlcoaCommunity Credit Union in the U. S. District Court for theDistrict of Colorado, have been consolidated.

On May 4, 2017, Bellwether Community Credit Union filed apurported class action complaint in the United States DistrictCourt for the District of Colorado alleging that the companynegligently failed to provide adequate security to protect thepayment card information of customers of the plaintiffs and thoseof other similarly situated credit unions, banks and otherfinancial institutions alleged to be part of the putative class,causing those institutions to suffer financial losses. Thecomplaint also claims that the company was negligent per se basedon alleged violations of Section 5 of the Federal TradeCommission Act and similar state laws. The plaintiff seeksmonetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

On May 26, 2017, Alcoa Community Credit Union filed a purportedclass action complaint in the U. S. District Court for theDistrict of Colorado making substantially the same allegations asthe Bellwether complaint and seeking substantially the samerelief. The Bellwether and Alcoa cases have been consolidated andwill proceed as a single action.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. is an American chain of fast casualrestaurants in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada,Germany, and France, specializing in tacos and Mission-styleburritos. Its name derives from chipotle, the Nahuatl name for asmoked and dried jalapeno chili pepper. The company is based inDenver, Colorado.

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: "Gordon" and "Lawson" Suits Consolidated----------------------------------------------------------Chiptole Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2017, that the plaintiffs in theGordon case and the Lawson and Conard case have notified thecourt of their agreement to consolidate their cases and file anamended consolidated complaint.

On June 9, 2017, Todd Gordon filed a purported class actioncomplaint in the U. S. District Court for the District ofColorado alleging that the company negligently failed to provideadequate security to protect the payment card information of theplaintiff and other similarly situated customers alleged to bepart of the putative class, causing such customers to sufferfinancial losses. The complaint also claims the company wasnegligent per se based on alleged violations of Section 5 of theFederal Trade Commission Act and similar state laws, and alsoalleges breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations ofthe Arizona Consumer Fraud Act.

Additionally, on August 21, 2017, Greg Lawson and Judy Conardfiled a purported class action complaint in the U. S. DistrictCourt for the District of Colorado making allegationssubstantially similar to those in the Gordon complaint, andstating substantially similar claims as well as claims under theColorado Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiffs in the Gordoncase and the Lawson and Conard case have notified the court oftheir agreement to consolidate their cases and file an amendedconsolidated complaint for the consolidated matter.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. is an American chain of fast casualrestaurants in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada,Germany, and France, specializing in tacos and Mission-styleburritos. Its name derives from chipotle, the Nahuatl name for asmoked and dried jalapeno chili pepper. The company is based inDenver, Colorado.

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: NY and CO Shareholders Suits Still Ongoing------------------------------------------------------------Chiptole Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2017, that the company continues todefend itself from a purported class action complaints filed bySusie Ong in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District ofNew York and Elizabeth Kelly in the U.S. District Court for theDistrict of Colorado.

On January 8, 2016, Susie Ong filed a complaint in the U.S.District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf ofa purported class of purchasers of shares of the company's commonstock between February 4, 2015 and January 5, 2016. The complaintpurports to state claims against the company, each of the co-Chief Executive Officers serving during the claimed class periodand the Chief Financial Officer under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) ofthe Exchange Act and related rules, based on the company'salleged failure during the claimed class period to disclosematerial information about the quality controls and safeguards inrelation to consumer and employee health. The complaint assertsthat those failures and related public statements were false andmisleading and that, as a result, the market price of thecompany's stock was artificially inflated during the claimedclass period. The complaint seeks damages on behalf of thepurported class in an unspecified amount, interest, and an awardof reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs.

On March 8, 2017, the court granted the company's motion todismiss the complaint, with leave to amend. The plaintiff filedan amended complaint on April 7, 2017. Additionally, on July 20,2017, Elizabeth Kelly filed a complaint in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the District of Colorado on behalf of a purported classof purchasers of shares of our common stock between February 5,2016 and July 19, 2017, with claims and factual allegationssimilar to the Ong complaint, based primarily on media reportsregarding illnesses associated with a Chipotle restaurant inSterling, Virginia.

Chipotle Mexican Grill said "We intend to defend these casesvigorously, but it is not possible at this time to reasonablyestimate the outcome of or any potential liability from thecases."

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. is an American chain of fast casualrestaurants in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada,Germany, and France, specializing in tacos and Mission-styleburritos. Its name derives from chipotle, the Nahuatl name for asmoked and dried jalapeno chili pepper. The company is based inDenver, Colorado.

CHRISTOPHER & BANKS: $1.475MM Contributed to Settlement Fund------------------------------------------------------------Christopher & Banks Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Reportfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarterly period ended July 29, 2017, that the companycontributed $1.475 million into a settlement fund in the secondfiscal quarter of 2017.

The Company said, "In connection with a preliminary settlement ofpre-litigation employment claims reached in February 2017, weestablished a loss contingency of $1.475 million as of January28, 2017. In connection therewith, on April 13, 2017, a complaintwas filed in state Circuit Court in the Fifteenth JudicialCircuit in Palm Beach County, Florida (the "Florida CircuitCourt") by three named plaintiffs in a purported class actionasserting claims on behalf of current and former store managers.The plaintiffs principally alleged that they and other similarlysituated store managers were improperly classified as exemptemployees and thus not compensated for overtime work as requiredunder applicable federal and state law. On May 4, 2017, theCompany entered into a settlement agreement with the namedplaintiffs and the proposed class. On May 8, 2017, the FloridaCircuit Court issued an order approving the class settlement."

As approved by the Florida Circuit Court, certain current andformer store managers will be eligible to receive payments inconnection with time worked in prior years. The settlement of thelawsuit is not an admission by us of any wrongdoing.

Christopher & Banks said "As part of the settlement, the Companycontributed $1.475 million into a settlement fund in the secondfiscal quarter of 2017. Any funds remaining after payment of allsubmitted claims and related settlement fund costs and expenseswill revert to the Company. A final resolution of the matter andthe dissolution of the settlement fund is expected by the end ofthis fiscal year. While the ultimate amount of the claims paidunder the settlement is likely to be less than the Company hasrecorded, the difference is not expected to have a materialimpact on our consolidated financial position or liquidity."

Christopher & Banks Corporation is a national specialty retailerfeaturing exclusively-designed, privately-branded women's appareland accessories. The company offers their customers an assortmentof unique, classic and versatile clothing that fits her everydayneeds at a good value. The company operates an integrated, omni-channel platform that provides their customers the ability toshop when and where they wants, including online or at retail andoutlet stores.

CMS ENERGY: Gas Index Price Reporting Suit Still Ongoing--------------------------------------------------------CMS Energy Corporation warned in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2017, that the bankruptcy filing of anunaffiliated company that is also a defendant in a pricereporting class action suit could increase the risk of loss toCMS Energy.

CMS Energy, along with CMS MST, CMS Field Services, CanteraNatural Gas, Inc., and Cantera Gas Company, have been named asdefendants in four class action lawsuits and one individuallawsuit arising as a result of alleged inaccurate natural gasprice reporting to publications that report trade information.Allegations include price-fixing conspiracies, restraint oftrade, and artificial inflation of natural gas retail prices inKansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin. Plaintiffs are making claims forthe following: treble damages, full consideration damages,exemplary damages, costs, interest, and/or attorneys' fees.

After removal to federal court, all of the cases were transferredto a single federal district court pursuant to the multidistrictlitigation process. In 2010 and 2011, all claims against CMSEnergy defendants were dismissed by the district court based onFERC preemption. In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the NinthCircuit reversed the district court decision. The appellate courtfound that FERC preemption does not apply under the facts ofthese cases. The appellate court affirmed the district court'sdenial of leave to amend to add federal antitrust claims. Thematter was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2015upheld the Ninth Circuit's decision. The cases were remanded backto the federal district court.

In May 2016, the federal district court granted the defendants'motion for summary judgment in the individual lawsuit based on arelease in a prior settlement involving similar allegations andreinstated CMS Energy as a defendant in one of the class actionlawsuits. The order of summary judgment has been appealed.

In December 2016, CMS Energy entities reached a settlement withthe plaintiffs in the three Kansas and Missouri cases for anamount that was not material to CMS Energy. In August 2017, thefederal district court approved the settlement.

CMS Energy entities remain as defendants in the Wisconsin classaction lawsuits. In March 2017, the federal district court deniedplaintiffs' motion for class certification. The plaintiffsappealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the NinthCircuit, which has accepted the matter for hearing. In June 2017,an unaffiliated company that is also a defendant in these casesfiled for bankruptcy, which could increase the risk of loss toCMS Energy.

CMS Energy said "These cases involve complex facts, a largenumber of similarly situated defendants with different factualpositions, and multiple jurisdictions. Presently, any estimate ofliability would be highly speculative; the amount of CMS Energy'sreasonably possible loss would be based on widely varying modelspreviously untested in this context. If the outcome after appealsis unfavorable, these cases could negatively affect CMS Energy'sliquidity, financial condition, and results of operations."

CMS Energy Corporation is an energy company that is focusedprincipally on utility operations in Michigan. Its principalbusiness is Consumers Energy, a public utility that provideselectricity and natural gas to more than 6 million of Michigan's10 million residents. Its non-utility businesses are focusedprimarily on domestic independent power production. ConsumersEnergy has operated since 1886. The company is based in Michigan.

CR BARD: Continues to Defend Suits over Hernia Products-------------------------------------------------------C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2017, that the company continues to defend lawsuitsrelated to Hernia Product Claims in various federal and statecourts.

As of September 30, 2017, approximately 25 federal and 185 statelawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 205plaintiffs, as well as one putative class action in the UnitedStates, are currently pending against the company with respect toits Composix(R) Kugel(R) and certain other hernia repair implantproducts (collectively, the "Hernia Product Claims"). The companyvoluntarily recalled certain sizes and lots of the Composix(R)Kugel(R) products beginning in December 2005. In June 2007, theComposix(R) Kugel(R) lawsuits and, subsequently, other herniarepair product lawsuits, pending in federal courts nationwidewere transferred into one Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") forcoordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States DistrictCourt for the District of Rhode Island. The MDL stopped acceptingnew cases in the second quarter of 2014 and was terminated inNovember 2016, at which time the remaining federal lawsuits wereremanded to their courts of original jurisdiction for trial.

As of September 30, 2017, all but one of the United Statesputative class actions pending against the company was dismissed.The remaining putative class action pending against the companyhas not been certified and seeks: (i) medical monitoring; (ii)compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages; (iv) a judicialfinding of defect and causation; and/or (v) attorneys' fees. InApril 2014, a settlement was reached with respect to threeputative Canadian class actions within amounts previouslyrecorded by the company. As of September 30, 2017, five newputative Canadian class actions have been filed against thecompany. Approximately 170 of the state lawsuits, involvingindividual claims by approximately 170 plaintiffs, are pending inthe Superior Court of the State of Rhode Island, with theremainder in various other jurisdictions. The Hernia ProductClaims also generally seek damages for personal injury resultingfrom use of the products.

The company has resolved the majority of its historical HerniaProduct Claims, including through agreements or agreements inprinciple with various plaintiffs' law firms to settle theirrespective inventories of cases. Each agreement involving thesettlement of a firm's inventory of claims was subject to certainconditions, including requirements for participation in theproposed settlements by a certain minimum number of plaintiffs.In addition, the company continues to engage in discussions withother plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution ofunsettled Hernia Product Claims, and intends to vigorously defendHernia Product Claims that do not settle, including throughlitigation. The company expects additional trials of HerniaProduct Claims to take place over the next 12 months.

The company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of theHernia Product Claims that have not settled, including assertedand unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuit, willnot have a material adverse effect on the company's business,results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.

CR BARD: Suits over Women's Products Underway---------------------------------------------C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2017, that the company continues to defend lawsuitsrelated to Women's Health Product Claims in various federal andstate courts.

As of September 30, 2017, product liability lawsuits involvingindividual claims by approximately 3,285 plaintiffs are currentlypending against the company in various federal and statejurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the useof certain of the company's surgical continence products forwomen, which includes products manufactured by both the companyand two subsidiaries of Medtronic plc (as successor in interestto Covidien plc) ("Medtronic"), each a supplier of the company.Medtronic has an obligation to defend and indemnify the companywith respect to any product defect liability for products itssubsidiaries had manufactured. In July 2015 the company reachedan agreement with Medtronic (which was amended in June 2017)regarding certain aspects of Medtronic's indemnificationobligation.

In addition, five putative class actions in the United States andfive putative class actions in Canada have been filed against thecompany, and a limited number of other claims have been filed orasserted in various non-U.S. jurisdictions. The foregoinglawsuits, unfiled or unknown claims, putative class actions andother claims, together with claims that have settled or are thesubject of agreements or agreements in principle to settle, arereferred to collectively as the "Women's Health Product Claims".The Women's Health Product Claims generally seek damages forpersonal injury resulting from use of the products.

The putative class actions, none of which has been certified,seek: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii)punitive damages; (iv) a judicial finding of defect andcausation; and/or (v) attorneys' fees. In April 2015, the OntarioSuperior Court of Justice dismissed the plaintiffs' motion forclass certification in one Canadian putative class action. InMarch 2016, the company reached an agreement in principle toresolve all Canadian putative class actions, with the exceptionof a Quebec class action, within amounts previously recorded bythe company, which settlement was finalized in September 2016. InJanuary 2017, the court approved the discontinuance of theproposed Quebec class action.

In October 2010, the Women's Health Product Claims involvingsolely Avaulta(R) products pending in federal courts nationwidewere transferred into an MDL in the United States District Courtfor the Southern District of West Virginia (the "WV DistrictCourt"), the scope of which was later expanded to includelawsuits involving all women's surgical continence products thatare manufactured or distributed by the company. The first trialin a state court was completed in California in July 2012 andresulted in a judgment against the company of approximately $3.6million. On appeal the decision was affirmed by the appellatecourt in November 2014. The company filed a petition for reviewto the California Supreme Court on December 24, 2014, which wasdenied on February 18, 2015. The judgment in this matter,including interest and costs, was paid on March 20, 2015 withinthe amounts previously recorded by the company.

The first trial in the MDL commenced in July 2013 and resulted ina judgment against the company of approximately $2 million, whichwas upheld by the Fourth Circuit on January 14, 2016. The companydoes not believe that any verdicts entered to date arerepresentative of potential outcomes of all Women's HealthProduct Claims. On January 16, 2014 and July 31, 2014, the WVDistrict Court ordered that the company prepare 200 and then anadditional 300 individual cases, respectively, for trial (the"2014 WHP Pre-Trial Orders"). The 2014 WHP Pre-Trial Ordersresulted in significant additional litigation-related defensecosts beginning in the second quarter of 2014 and continuingthrough the second quarter of 2015. In February 2015, the WVDistrict Court appointed a Special Master to assist withsettlement resolution. In June 2015, the WV District Court issuedan order staying the requirement to prepare a significant portionof the cases covered by the 2014 WHP Pre-Trial Orders.

Substantially all of the 500 individual cases that are thesubject of the 2014 WHP Pre-Trial Orders have been part ofagreements or agreements in principle to settle with variousplaintiff law firms. In December 2016, the WV District Courtlifted the stay of the 2014 WHP Pre-Trial Orders and remandedfive of the unsettled cases to their courts of originaljurisdiction for trial. In the first quarter of 2017, anadditional 11 cases were remanded for trial for a total of 16remanded cases. As of September 30, 2017, after accounting forsettlements effectuated over the second and third quarters of2017, there are only three remaining remanded matters, of whichtwo cases have been assigned trial dates in 2018. In response tocourt orders on January 27, 2017 and March 3, 2017, the companyis preparing an additional approximately 125 remaining individualcases for trial (together with the 2014 WHP Pre-Trial Orders, the"WHP Pre-Trial Orders"), which has been reduced from the originalorder due to settlements and dismissals over the second and thirdquarters of 2017.

The WHP Pre-Trial Orders may result in material additional costsin future periods in defending Women's Health Product Claims. TheWV District Court may also order that the company prepareadditional cases for trial, which could result in materialadditional costs in future periods.

As of September 30, 2017, the company reached agreements oragreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms tosettle their respective inventories of cases totalingapproximately 13,050 Women's Health Product Claims, includingapproximately: 560 during 2014, 6,215 during 2015, 4,155 during2016 and 2,120 during 2017.

C. R. Bard said "The company believes that these Women's HealthProduct Claims are not the subject of Medtronic's indemnificationobligation. These settlement agreements and agreements inprinciple include unfiled and previously unknown claims held byvarious plaintiffs' law firms, which have not been included inthe approximate number of lawsuits set forth in the firstparagraph of this section." Each agreement is subject to certainconditions, including requirements for participation in theproposed settlements by a certain minimum number of plaintiffs."

The company continues to engage in discussions with otherplaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettledWomen's Health Product Claims, which may include additionalinventory settlements. Notwithstanding these settlement efforts,the company anticipates additional trials over the next 12months. In addition, one or more possible consolidated trials mayoccur in the future.

In July 2015, Medtronic agreed to take responsibility forpursuing settlement of certain of the Women's Health ProductClaims that relate to products distributed by the company undersupply agreements with Medtronic and the company has paidMedtronic $121 million towards these potential settlements. InJune 2017, the company amended the agreement with Medtronic totransfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women'sHealth Product Claims to Medtronic on terms similar to the July2015 agreement, including with respect to the obligation to makepayments to Medtronic towards these potential settlements. Thecompany also may, in its sole discretion, transfer responsibilityfor settlement of additional Women's Health Product Claims toMedtronic on similar terms. The agreements do not resolve thedispute between the company and Medtronic with respect to Women'sHealth Product Claims that do not settle, if any. As part of theagreements, Medtronic and the company agreed to dismiss withoutprejudice their previously filed litigation with respect toMedtronic's obligation to defend and indemnify the company.

CR BARD: Continues to Defend Against Filter Product Claims----------------------------------------------------------C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2017, that as of September 30, 2017, productliability lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately2,765 plaintiffs are currently pending against the company invarious federal and state jurisdictions alleging personalinjuries associated with the use of the company's vena cavafilter products (all lawsuits, collectively, the "Filter ProductClaims").

In August 2015, the Judicial Panel for Multi-District Litigation("JPML") ordered the creation of a Multi-District Litigation forall federal Filter Product Claims (the "IVC Filter MDL") in theDistrict of Arizona. There are approximately 2,690 Filter ProductClaims that have been, or shortly will be, transferred to the IVCFilter MDL. In September 2017, the Court denied Plaintiffs'motion seeking class certification of a medical monitoring class.Plaintiffs may appeal this decision. In March 2017, the companyfiled a motion for summary judgment based upon principles offederal preemption. The remaining approximately 70 Filter ProductClaims are pending in various state courts.

In March 2016, a putative Canadian class action was filed againstthe company in Quebec. In April 2016 and May 2016, putativeCanadian class actions were filed in Ontario and BritishColumbia, respectively. In November 2016, a putative Canadianclass action was filed in Saskatchewan. The approximate number oflawsuits set forth above does not include approximately 20 claimsthat have been threatened against the company but for whichcomplaints have not yet been filed. In addition, the company haslimited information regarding the nature and quantity of theseand other unfiled or unknown claims.

The company continues to receive claims and lawsuits and may infuture periods learn additional information regarding otherunfiled or unknown claims, or other lawsuits, which couldmaterially impact the company's estimate of the number of claimsor lawsuits against the company. The company expects that trialsof Filter Product Claims may take place over the next 12 months.

C. R. Bard said "While the company intends to vigorously defendFilter Product Claims that do not settle, including throughlitigation, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution ofthese claims will not have a material adverse effect on thecompany's business, results of operations, financial conditionand/or liquidity."

CR BARD: "Tanguma" Class Action Suit Voluntarily Dismissed----------------------------------------------------------C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2017, that the Tanguma action has been voluntarilydismissed by the plaintiffs.

The company, its directors, BD and Merger Corp were or have beennamed as defendants in two putative class actions in the UnitedStates District Court of the District of New Jersey, under thecaptions Barbara Stanford Tanguma v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al.,Case No. 2:17-CV-03977 (filed June 2, 2017) (the "Tangumaaction") and Richard K. Maser v. Timothy M. Ring, et al., CaseNo. 2:17-CV-04549 (filed June 21, 2017) (the "Maser action" and,together with the Tanguma action, the "lawsuits"). The complaintfor the Tanguma action alleged, and for the Maser action alleges,that the preliminary registration statement on Form S-4 filed byBD on May 23, 2017 contains material misstatements and omitsmaterial information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) ofthe Exchange Act.

The Tanguma action sought, and the Maser action continues toseek, among other things, equitable relief to enjoin consummationof the Merger and attorneys' fees and costs. The Tanguma actionalso sought dissemination of a registration statement that ismaterially true and not misleading and, if the company and BDconsummate the Merger, its rescission and/or rescissory damages,and the Maser action continues to seek unspecified damages. OnSeptember 25, 2017, the Tanguma action was voluntarily dismissedby the plaintiffs.

C. R. Bard said "The company believes that Maser action iswithout merit."

ERIE INDEMNITY: Case Dismissal Order Under Appeal to 3rd Circuit----------------------------------------------------------------Erie Indemnity Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2017, that the plaintiffs in the "Beltz II"lawsuit filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court ofAppeals for the Third Circuit, from the district court's decisiongranting the company's and the directors' motion to dismiss aclass action lawsuit.

On February 6, 2013, a lawsuit was filed in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania,captioned Erie Insurance Exchange, an unincorporated association,by members Patricia R. Beltz, Joseph S. Sullivan and AnitaSullivan, and Patricia R. Beltz, on behalf of herself and otherssimilarly situate v. Richard L. Stover; J. Ralph Borneman, Jr.;Terrence W. Cavanaugh; Jonathan Hirt Hagen; Susan Hirt Hagen;Thomas B. Hagen; C. Scott Hartz; Claude C. Lilly, III; Lucian L.Morrison; Thomas W. Palmer; Martin P. Sheffield; Elizabeth H.Vorsheck; and Robert C. Wilburn (the "Beltz" lawsuit), by allegedpolicyholders of Exchange who are also the plaintiffs in theSullivan lawsuit. The individuals named as defendants in theBeltz lawsuit were the then-current Directors of Indemnity.

As subsequently amended, the Beltz lawsuit asserts many of thesame allegations and claims for monetary relief as in theSullivan lawsuit. Plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of allpolicyholders of Exchange, or, alternatively, on behalf ofExchange itself. Indemnity filed a motion to intervene as a PartyDefendant in the Beltz lawsuit in July 2013, and the Directorsfiled a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in August 2013. On February10, 2014, the court entered an order granting Indemnity's motionto intervene and permitting Indemnity to join the Directors'motion to dismiss; granting in part the Directors' motion todismiss; referring the matter to the Department to decide any andall issues within its jurisdiction; denying all other reliefsought in the Directors' motion as moot; and dismissing the casewithout prejudice. To avoid duplicative proceedings and expeditethe Department's review, the Parties stipulated that only theSullivan action would proceed before the Department and any finaland non-appealable determinations made by the Department in theSullivan action will be applied to the Beltz action.

On March 7, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Indemnityfiled a motion to dismiss the appeal on March 26, 2014. OnNovember 17, 2014, the Third Circuit deferred ruling onIndemnity's motion to dismiss the appeal and instructed theparties to address that motion, as well as the merits ofPlaintiffs' appeal, in the parties' briefing. Briefing wascompleted on April 2, 2015. In light of the Department's April29, 2015 decision in Sullivan, the Parties then jointly requestedthat the Beltz appeal be voluntarily dismissed as moot on June 5,2015. The Third Circuit did not rule on the Parties' request fordismissal and instead held oral argument as scheduled on June 8,2015. On July 16, 2015, the Third Circuit issued an opinion andjudgment dismissing the appeal. The Third Circuit found that itlacked appellate jurisdiction over the appeal, because theDistrict Court's February 10, 2014 order referring the matter tothe Department was not a final, appealable order.

The allegations of the Beltz II lawsuit arise from the samefundamental, underlying claims as the Sullivan and prior Beltzlitigation, i.e., that Indemnity improperly retained ServiceCharges and Added Service Charges. The Beltz II lawsuit allegesthat the retention of the Service Charges and Added ServiceCharges was improper because, for among other reasons, thatretention constituted a breach of the Subscriber's Agreement andan Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing by Indemnity,breaches of fiduciary duty by Indemnity and the other defendants,conversion by Indemnity, and unjust enrichment by defendantsJonathan Hirt Hagen, Thomas B. Hagen, Elizabeth A. Hirt Vorsheck,and Samuel P. Black, III, at the expense of Exchange. The BeltzII lawsuit requests, among other things, that a judgment beentered against the Defendants certifying the action as a classaction pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of CivilProcedure; declaring Plaintiffs as representatives of the Classand Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the Class; declaring theconduct alleged as unlawful, including, but not limited to,Defendants' retention of the Service Charges and Added ServiceCharges; enjoining Defendants from continuing to retain theService Charges and Added Service Charges; and awardingcompensatory and punitive damages and interest.

On September 23, 2016, Indemnity filed a motion to dismiss theBeltz II lawsuit. On September 30, 2016, the Directors filedtheir own motions to dismiss the Beltz II lawsuit. On July 17,2017, the Court granted Indemnity's and the Directors' motions todismiss the Beltz II lawsuit, dismissing the case in itsentirety. The Court ruled that "the Subscriber's Agreement doesnot govern the separate and additional charges at issue in theComplaint" and, therefore, dismissed the breach of contract claimagainst Indemnity for failure to state a claim. The Court alsoruled that the remaining claims, including the claims for breachof fiduciary duty against Indemnity and the Directors, are barredby the applicable statutes of limitation or fail to state legallycognizable claims. On August 14, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a noticeof appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the ThirdCircuit.

Indemnity believes it has meritorious legal and factual defensesand intends to vigorously defend against all allegations andrequests for relief in the Beltz II lawsuit. The Directors haveadvised Indemnity that they intend to vigorously defend againstthe claims in the Beltz II lawsuit and have soughtindemnification and advancement of expenses from the Company inconnection with the Beltz II lawsuit.

Erie Indemnity Company operates as a managing attorney-in-factfor the subscribers at the Erie Insurance Exchange in the UnitedStates. The company provides sales, underwriting, and policyissuance services for the policyholders on behalf of the ErieInsurance Exchange. Its sales related services include agentcompensation, and sales and advertising support services; andunderwriting services comprise underwriting and policyprocessing, as well as provides administrative support,information technology, and customer services. The companyoperates three field offices. Erie Indemnity Company was foundedin 1925 and is based in Erie, Pennsylvania.

EVINE LIVE: Customer Class Action in New York Ongoing-----------------------------------------------------Evine Live Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedJuly 29, 2017, that a customer had filed a purported class actionin the United States District Court for the Eastern District ofNew York.

On June 26, 2017, a purported class action case was filed by anindividual, William Horan, against both the Company and InvictaWatch Co. of America, Inc. ("Invicta") in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Eastern District of New York, assertingclaims under the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and New YorkGeneral Business Law Section 349. The claims relate to thewarranty provided with the Invicta watch that the plaintiffallegedly purchased through the Company. Plaintiff alleges thatthe defendants breached the warranty, failed to disclose materialinformation and\or made false representations concerning thewarranty. This case is pled as a putative class action, whichmeans that the plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all othersimilarly situated individuals who purchased an Invicta watchthrough the Company. The complaint seeks, among other relief,class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages,injunctive relief, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees,and such other relief as the court might find just and proper.

Evine Live said "Given the uncertainty of litigation, thepreliminary stage of this case and the legal standards that mustbe met for, among other things, class certification, the Companycannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of lossthat may result from this action."

Evine Live Inc. is a multiplatform video commerce company thatoffers a mix of proprietary, exclusive and name brands directlyto consumers in an engaging and informative shopping experiencethrough TV, online and mobile devices. The company operates a 24-hour television shopping network, Evine, which is distributedprimarily on cable and satellite systems, through which thecompany offers proprietary, exclusive and name brand merchandisesin the categories of jewelry & watches; home & consumerelectronics; beauty; and fashion & accessories.

EVINE LIVE: TCPA Class Action in California Underway----------------------------------------------------Evine Live Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedJuly 29, 2017, that the company is facing a TCPA class actionsuit in the United States District Court for the Central Districtof California.

On June 29, 2017, a purported class action case was filed by anindividual, Betty Gregory, against the Company in the UnitedStates District Court for the Central District of California,asserting claims under the federal Telephone Consumer ProtectionAct ("TCPA"). The plaintiff alleges that the Company unlawfullycontacted her on her cellular telephone without her prior expressconsent. This case is pled as a putative class action, and theplaintiff seeks to represent a class of all other individuals whoreceived telephone calls similar to the ones she allegedlyreceived from the Company and the Company's third-partycollection vendors. The TCPA provides for recovery of actualdamages or $500 for each violation, whichever is greater. If itis determined that a defendant acted willfully or knowingly inviolating the TCPA, the amount of the award may be increased byup to three times the amount provided above. The complaint seeks,among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit,unspecified damages, injunctive relief, costs and expenses,including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the courtmight find just and proper.

Evine Live said "Given the uncertainty of litigation, thepreliminary stage of this case and the legal standards that mustbe met for, among other things, class certification, the Companycannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of lossthat may result from this action."

Evine Live Inc. is a multiplatform video commerce company thatoffers a mix of proprietary, exclusive and name brands directlyto consumers in an engaging and informative shopping experiencethrough TV, online and mobile devices. The company operates a 24-hour television shopping network, Evine, which is distributedprimarily on cable and satellite systems, through which thecompany offers proprietary, exclusive and name brand merchandisesin the categories of jewelry & watches; home & consumerelectronics; beauty; and fashion & accessories.

"all persons employed by Defendants since December 2014 who werepaid on a "day rate" basis but were not paid at a rate equal toor higher than the federal minimum wage rate and/or who were notpaid at an overtime rate of one and one-half times their hourlyrate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 per week inviolation of the Fair Labor Standards Act."

Plaintiff Linda Ewing worked exclusively for First Energy as aField Agent during the relevant statutory time period. Throughouther employment with First Energy, Ewing was paid a day rate withno overtime compensation and was classified as an independentcontractor. Plaintiff Ewing is resident of and a citizen ofPennsylvania.

FIVE BOROUGH: Stepanov Seeks Minimum Wages, OT under Labor Law--------------------------------------------------------------ZULFIYA STEPANOV, individually and on behalf of all other personssimilarly situated who were employed by FIVE BOROUGH HOME CARE,INC. along with other entities affiliated or controlled by FIVEBOROUGH HOME CARE, INC., the Plaintiffs, v. FIVE BOROUGH HOMECARE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 161196/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,Dec. 19, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtimecompensation, "spread of hours" compensation, reimbursement forbusiness expenses borne for the benefit and convenience of theDefendant, as well as damages arising from Defendant's breach ofcontract, which they were deprived of, plus interest, attorneys'fees, and costs, pursuant to New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has maintained a policyand practice of requiring Plaintiffs to regularly work in excessof ten hours per day, without providing the proper hourlycompensation for all hours worked, overtime compensation for allhours worked in excess of 40 hours in any given week, and "spreadof hours" compensation.

"(1) all persons with a New Jersey address, (2) to whom GC Services Limited Partnership mailed an initial communication letter to Plaintiff's Complaint that stated: (a) "However, if you do dispute all or any portion of this debt within 30 days of receiving this letter, we will obtain verification of the debt from our client and send it to you." and/or (b) "if within 30 days of receiving this letter you request the name and address of the original creditor, we will provide it to you in the event it differs from our client, Synchrony Bank", (3) between August 5, 2014 through and including August 24, 2015, (4) in connection with the collection of a consumer debt, (5) that was not returned as undeliverable to GC Services Limited Partnership."

The Plaintiff further asks the Court that she be appointed as theclass representative and that Ryan Gentile, Esq. be appointed ascounsel for the class.

"all participants in the Chemonics International, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and the beneficiaries of such participants, who were allocated Chemonics International, Inc. stock in the Plan from July 7, 2011 to present."

The Plaintiff and all similarly situated persons who arepresently or were formerly employed by Defendants as chauffeurswho, as part of their employment, picked up and dropped offvehicles at EmpireCLS's Secaucus, New Jersey garage

Beginning in December 2008 and, continuing through the present,Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of failing topay Plaintiff and the putative class members employed as GarageChauffers earned minimum wages for work performed in connectionwith Defendants' luxury transportation company. The Defendantshave engaged in a policy and practice of requiring theiremployees to regularly work in excess of 40 hours per week,without providing overtime compensation as required by applicablestate law.[BN]

HP INC: Additional Bid to Compel Arbitration Filed in "Forsyth"---------------------------------------------------------------HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 29,2017, that defendants filed additional motions to compelarbitration as to a number of the opt-in plaintiffs, in the caseForsyth, et al. vs. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise.

This is a purported class and collective action filed on August18, 2016 in the United States District Court, Northern Districtof California, against HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise allegingthe defendants violated the Federal Age Discrimination inEmployment Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair Employment andHousing Act, California public policy and the California Businessand Professions Code by terminating older workers and replacingthem with younger workers. Plaintiffs seek to certify anationwide collective class action under the ADEA comprised ofall U.S. residents employed by defendants who had theiremployment terminated pursuant to a workforce reduction ("WFR")plan on or after May 23, 2012 and who were 40 years of age orolder. Plaintiffs also seek to represent a Rule 23 class underCalifornia law comprised of all persons 40 years or olderemployed by defendants in the state of California and terminatedpursuant to a WFR plan on or after May 23, 2012.

Following a partial motion to dismiss, a motion to strike and amotion to compel arbitration that the defendants filed inNovember 2016, the plaintiffs amended their complaint. Newplaintiffs were added, but the plaintiffs agreed that the classperiod for the nationwide collective action should be shortenedand now starts on December 9, 2014. On January 30, 2017, thedefendants filed another partial motion to dismiss and motions tocompel arbitration as to several of the plaintiffs. On March 20,2017, the defendants filed additional motions to compelarbitration as to a number of the opt-in plaintiffs.

HP Inc. is a leading global provider of personal computing andother access devices, imaging and printing products, and relatedtechnologies, solutions, and services. The company sells toindividual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses andlarge enterprises, including customers in the government, health,and education sectors.

HP INC: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Drop Firmware Update Suit-----------------------------------------------------------HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 29,2017, that HP's motion to dismiss in the case entitled captionedIn re HP Printer Firmware Update Litigation remains pending.

Five purported consumer class actions were filed against HP,arising out of the supplies authentication protocol in certainOfficeJet printers. This authentication protocol rejects somethird-party ink cartridges that use non-HP security chips. Twoof the cases were dismissed, and the remaining cases have beenconsolidated in the United States District Court for the NorthernDistrict of California, captioned In re HP Printer FirmwareUpdate Litigation.

The plaintiffs seek to certify a primary class of all persons inthe United States who purchased or owned the OfficeJet printersin question, and they alternatively seek to certify subclasses ofall such printer purchasers or owners in California, Texas,Washington, and/or New Jersey. On April 21, 2017, HP filed amotion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The court held ahearing on July 14, 2017. HP's motion to dismiss remains pending.

INTEL CORP: Appeal in Calif. Shareholders Suit Still Pending------------------------------------------------------------Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2017, that a California Court of Appeals heard oralargument in October 2017 on the plaintiffs' appeal on a lowercourt ruling, and the parties await the appeals court's decision.

On August 19, 2010, the company announced that it had agreed toacquire all of the common stock of McAfee, Inc. for $48.00 pershare. Four McAfee shareholders filed putative class-actionlawsuits in Santa Clara County, California Superior Courtchallenging the proposed transaction. The cases were orderedconsolidated in September 2010.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that named former McAfeeboard members, McAfee, and Intel as defendants, and alleged thatthe McAfee board members breached their fiduciary duties and thatMcAfee and Intel aided and abetted those breaches of duty. Thecomplaint requested rescission of the merger agreement, suchother equitable relief as the court may deem proper, and an awardof damages in an unspecified amount.

In June 2012, the plaintiffs' damages expert asserted that thevalue of a McAfee share for the purposes of assessing damagesshould be $62.08.

In January 2012, the court certified the action as a classaction, appointed the Central Pension Laborers' Fund to act asthe class representative and scheduled trial to begin in January2013. In March 2012, defendants filed a petition with theCalifornia Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse theclass certification order; the petition was denied in June 2012.In March 2012, at defendants' request, the court held thatplaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial and ordered a benchtrial. In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a petition with theCalifornia Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse thatorder, which the court of appeal denied in July 2012. In August2012, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The trialcourt granted that motion in November 2012, and entered finaljudgment in the case in February 2013.

In April 2013, plaintiffs appealed the final judgment. TheCalifornia Court of Appeal heard oral argument in October 2017,and the parties await the court's decision.

Intel said "Because the resolution of the appeal may materiallyimpact the scope and nature of the proceeding, we are unable tomake a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range oflosses, if any, arising from this matter. We dispute the class-action claims and intend to continue to defend the lawsuitvigorously."

ITURAN LOCATION: Israeli Class Action Suit Ongoing--------------------------------------------------Ituran Location and Control Ltd. said in its Form 20-F/A Reportfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscalyear ended December 31, 2016, that the company continues todefend itself in a purported class action suit.

On July 13, 2015 the company received a purported class actionlawsuit which was filed against the Company in the District Courtof Central Region in Tel-Aviv, Israel, by one plaintiff who is asubscriber of the Company, alleging that the Company, which wasdeclared a monopoly under the Israeli Restrictive Trade PracticesLaw, 1988, unlawfully abused its power as a monopoly anddiscriminated between its customers. The plaintiff claims thatthe alleged discrimination resulted from the Company charginghigher monthly subscription fees from customers who are obligedby insurance company requirements to install location andrecovery systems in their vehicles than the monthly subscriptionfees that are charged from customers who are not required byinsurance companies to install location and recovery systems intheir vehicles.

In addition, the plaintiff claims that the Company offers tocustomers who are not required by insurance companies to installlocation and recovery systems in their vehicles, a discountedwarrantee service to their location and recovery systems. Theplaintiff claims in addition to the above, that such actionsraise additional causes of action against the Company such asnegotiations without good faith, executing contract without goodfaith, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of consumerprotection laws, tort laws, and breach of statutory duty. Thelawsuit is yet to be approved as a class action. The total amountclaimed if the lawsuit is approved as a class action wasestimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 300 million(approximately USD 77 million).

The Company said, "Our defense against the approval of the classaction lawsuit was filed on January 3, 2016. The plaintiff hasresponded to our defense on February 29, 2016, and a firstpreliminary hearing took place on January 4th, 2017 A classaction lawsuit based on similar claims, against the Company,which description was filed with sect on form 6-K on March 22,2011, was dismissed by the court on the request of both parties,on March 5, 2012 for a small compensation to the plaintiff andhis attorneys, in a total amount of NIS 30,000 (approximately USD7,900). Such dismissal of a similar class action lawsuit may havea positive effect on the Company's defense against the currentlawsuit. Based on an opinion of its legal counsels, at thispreliminary stage, the Company is unable to assess the lawsuit'schances of success, however based on the documents of the claim,the Company has good defense arguments in respect of claims madeby the plaintiff and that the chances that the lawsuit will notbe approved as a class action lawsuit are higher than it will beapproved. While we cannot predict the outcome of this case, if weare not successful in defending our claim, we could be subject tosignificant costs, adversely affecting our results ofoperations."

Ituran Location and Control Ltd. is an Israeli company thatprovides stolen vehicle recovery and tracking services, andmarkets GPS wireless communications products. Ituran is traded onNASDAQ and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange and is included in the TA-100 Index. Ituran has over 1,300 employees worldwide and is amarket leader in Brazil, Argentina, Israel and the United States.As of February 2015, the company has 817,000 subscribers. Ituranwas established in 1994 by the Tadiran conglomerate to developand operate a service for locating stolen vehicles using atechnology that was originally developed for military use atTadiran Telematics, a subsidiary of Tadiran Communications.

JC PENNEY: $97.5MM Deal in Securities Class Suit Awaits Final OK----------------------------------------------------------------J.C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly periodsended July 29, 2017, and ended October 28, 2017, that the partieshave reached an agreement in principle, subject to final courtapproval, to settle a consolidated securities class action for$97.5 million, which will be funded by insurance.

The Company, Myron E. Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah areparties to the Marcus consolidated purported class action lawsuitin the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, TylerDivision. The Marcus consolidated complaint is purportedlybrought on behalf of persons who acquired the company's commonstock during the period from August 20, 2013 through September26, 2013, and alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff claims that the defendants madefalse and misleading statements and/or omissions regarding theCompany's financial condition and business prospects that causedthe company's common stock to trade at artificially inflatedprices. The consolidated complaint seeks class certification,unspecified compensatory damages, including interest, reasonablecosts and expenses, and other relief as the court may deem justand proper. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidatedcomplaint which was denied by the court on September 29, 2015.Defendants filed an answer to the consolidated complaint onNovember 12, 2015. Plaintiff filed a motion for classcertification on January 25, 2016, and on August 29, 2016, amagistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that themotion for class certification be granted. The district courtadopted this report and recommendation granting classcertification on March 8, 2017.

Also, on August 26, 2014, plaintiff Nathan Johnson filed apurported class action lawsuit against the Company, Myron E.Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah in the U.S. District Court,Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. The suit ispurportedly brought on behalf of persons who acquired oursecurities other than common stock during the period from August20, 2013 through September 26, 2013, generally mirrors theallegations contained in the Marcus lawsuit discussed above, andseeks similar relief. On June 8, 2015, plaintiff in the Marcuslawsuit amended the consolidated complaint to include the membersof the purported class in the Johnson lawsuit, and on June 10,2015, the Johnson lawsuit was consolidated into the Marcuslawsuit.

The parties have reached an agreement in principle, subject tofinal court approval, to settle the consolidated securities classaction for $97.5 million, which will be funded by insurance. Thecourt granted preliminary approval of the settlement on June 24,2017.

J.C. Penney said "While no assurance can be given as to theultimate outcome of these matters, we believe that the finalresolution of these actions will not have a material adverseeffect on our results of operations, financial position,liquidity or capital resources."

J.C. Penney Company, Inc. is a holding company whose principaloperating subsidiary is J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. (JCP). JCPwas incorporated in Delaware in 1924, and J. C. Penney Company,Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in 2002, when the holdingcompany structure was implemented. The holding company has noindependent assets or operations and no direct subsidiaries otherthan JCP.

The company is an American department store chain with 1095locations in 49 U.S. states and Puerto Rico. In addition toselling conventional merchandise, JCPenney stores often houseseveral leased departments such as Sephora, Seattle's BestCoffee, salons, optical centers, portrait studios, and jewelryrepair.

JC PENNEY: Awaits Final Court Approval of $4.5MM ERISA Case Deal----------------------------------------------------------------J.C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly periodsended July 29, 2017, and ended October 28, 2017, that the courtgranted preliminary approval on a $4.5 million settlementagreement reached by the parties.

JCP and certain present and former members of JCP's Board ofDirectors have been sued in a purported class action complaint byplaintiffs Roberto Ramirez and Thomas Ihle, individually and onbehalf of all others similarly situated, which was filed on July8, 2014 in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas,Tyler Division. The suit alleges that the defendants violatedSection 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act(ERISA) by breaching fiduciary duties relating to the J. C.Penney Corporation, Inc. Savings, Profit-Sharing and StockOwnership Plan (the Plan). The class period is alleged to bebetween November 1, 2011 and September 27, 2013. Plaintiffsallege that they and others who invested in or held Company stockin the Plan during this period were injured because defendantsallegedly made false and misleading statements and/or omissionsregarding the Company's financial condition and businessprospects that caused the Company's common stock to trade atartificially inflated prices. The complaint seeks classcertification, declaratory relief, a constructive trust,reimbursement of alleged losses to the Plan, actual damages,attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which wasgranted in part and denied in part by the court on September 29,2015. The parties reached a settlement agreement, subject tofinal court approval, pursuant to which JCP would make available$4.5 million to settle class members' claims, and the courtgranted preliminary approval of the settlement on January 3,2017.

J.C. Penney said "While no assurance can be given as to theultimate outcome of these matters, we believe that the finalresolution of these actions will not have a material adverseeffect on our results of operations, financial position,liquidity or capital resources."

J.C. Penney Company, Inc. is a holding company whose principaloperating subsidiary is J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. (JCP). JCPwas incorporated in Delaware in 1924, and J. C. Penney Company,Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in 2002, when the holdingcompany structure was implemented. The holding company has noindependent assets or operations and no direct subsidiaries otherthan JCP.

The company is an American department store chain with 1095locations in 49 U.S. states and Puerto Rico. In addition toselling conventional merchandise, JCPenney stores often houseseveral leased departments such as Sephora, Seattle's BestCoffee, salons, optical centers, portrait studios, and jewelryrepair.

JC PENNEY: Deal in Calif. Suit Pending, Illinois Suit Resolved--------------------------------------------------------------J.C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly periodsended July 29, 2017, and ended October 28, 2017, that the partieshave reached a settlement agreement, subject to final courtapproval, to resolve a California action for $1.75 million. TheCalifornia court granted preliminary approval of the settlementon June 7, 2017. The parties have also reached a settlementagreement to resolve an Illinois action for $5 million. TheIllinois court granted final approval of the settlement on August9, 2017.

JCP is a defendant in a class action proceeding entitled Tschudyv. JCPenney Corporation filed on April 15, 2011 in the U.S.District Court, Southern District of California. The lawsuitalleges that JCP violated the California Labor Code in connectionwith the alleged forfeiture of accrued and vested vacation timeunder its "My Time Off" policy. The class consists of all JCPemployees who worked in California from April 5, 2007 to thepresent. Plaintiffs amended the complaint to assert additionalclaims under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act onbehalf of all JCP employees who worked in Illinois from January1, 2004 to the present.

After the court granted JCP's motion to transfer the Illinoisclaims, those claims are now pending in a separate action in theU.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, entitledGarcia v. JCPenney Corporation. The lawsuits seek compensatorydamages, penalties, interest, disgorgement, declaratory andinjunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiffs inboth lawsuits filed motions, which the Company opposed, tocertify these actions on behalf of all employees in Californiaand Illinois based on the specific claims at issue. On December17, 2014, the California court granted plaintiffs' motion forclass certification. Pursuant to a motion by the Company, theCalifornia court decertified the class on December 9, 2015. OnMarch 30, 2016, the California court granted JCP's motion forsummary judgment. On April 26, 2016, the California plaintiffsfiled a notice of appeal. On May 4, 2016, the California courtentered judgment for JCP on all plaintiffs' claims. The Illinoiscourt denied without prejudice plaintiffs' motion for classcertification pending the filing of an amended complaint.

Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint in the Illinois lawsuiton April 14, 2015 and the Company answered. On July 2, 2015, theIllinois plaintiffs renewed their motion for class certification,which the Illinois court granted on March 8, 2016. The partieshave reached a settlement agreement, subject to final courtapproval, to resolve the California action for $1.75 million. TheCalifornia court granted preliminary approval of the settlementon June 7, 2017. The parties have also reached a settlementagreement to resolve the Illinois action for $5 million. TheIllinois court granted final approval of the settlement on August9, 2017.

J.C. Penney said "While no assurance can be given as to theultimate outcome of these matters, we believe that the finalresolution of these actions will not have a material adverseeffect on our results of operations, financial position,liquidity or capital resources."

J.C. Penney Company, Inc. is a holding company whose principaloperating subsidiary is J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. (JCP). JCPwas incorporated in Delaware in 1924, and J. C. Penney Company,Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in 2002, when the holdingcompany structure was implemented. The holding company has noindependent assets or operations and no direct subsidiaries otherthan JCP.

The company is an American department store chain with 1095locations in 49 U.S. states and Puerto Rico. In addition toselling conventional merchandise, JCPenney stores often houseseveral leased departments such as Sephora, Seattle's BestCoffee, salons, optical centers, portrait studios, and jewelryrepair.

LOUISIANA: "Hamilton" Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes-------------------------------------------------------In the lawsuit styled MARCUS HAMILTON; WINTHROP EATON; andMICHAEL PERRY, on their own behalf, and on behalf of a class ofsimilarly situated prisoners, the Plaintiffs, v. DARREL VANNOY,Warden of Angola; BURL CAIN, former Warden of Angola; JAMESCRUZE, Warden of Death Row; LESLIE DUPONT, Deputy Warden ofSecurity; and JAMES LEBLANC, Secretary of the LouisianaDepartment of Public Safety Corrections, the Defendants, Case No.3:17-cv-00194-SDD-RLB (M.D. La.), the Plaintiffs will move theCourt for an order certifying two classes:

Due Process Class:

"all current and future Death Row prisoners at Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana, as well as other prisoners sentenced to death at Angola who are similarly situated"; and

Eighth Amendment Class:

"all current and future Death Row prisoners who are now, or will be, on Death Row under the conditions described above for more than five continuous years."

The Plaintiffs will also move for an order appointing thePlaintiffs' counsel to represent the certified classes.

MARVEL TECHNOLOGY: March Trial Date in Shareholder Suit-------------------------------------------------------Marvell Technology Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterlyperiod ended July 29, 2017, that the court has set a deadline ofDecember 29, 2017, for the conclusion of fact discovery, and atrial date of March 5, 2018.

On September 11, 2015, Daniel Luna filed an action assertingputative class action claims on behalf of the Company'sshareholders in the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York ("S.D. of New York"). This action wasconsolidated with two additional, nearly identical complaintssubsequently filed by Philip Limbacher and Jim Farno. Thecomplaints asserted violations of federal securities laws basedon allegations that the Company and certain of its officers anddirectors (Sehat Sutardja, Michael Rashkin, and Sukhi Nagesh)made, caused to be made, or failed to correct false and/ormisleading statements in the Company's press releases and publicfilings. The complaints request damages in unspecified amounts,costs and fees of bringing the action, and other unspecifiedrelief.

On November 18, 2015, the S.D. of New York granted the Company'smotion to transfer the consolidated cases to the N.D. ofCalifornia. On December 21, 2015, the N.D. of California grantedthe Company's motion to deem the consolidated cases related tothe Saratoga litigation, discussed below. On February 8, 2016,the N.D. of California granted an unopposed motion to appointPlumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff.On March 19, 2016, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amendedcomplaint. On April 29, 2016, Marvell and each of the individualdefendants each filed motions to dismiss. The hearing on themotions to dismiss took place on July 29, 2016 and the court tookthe matter under submission. On October 12, 2016, the Courtgranted Defendants' motions to dismiss with leave to amend andgranted lead plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint. Theparties agreed that the plaintiffs would file and serve anamended complaint by November 28, 2016. Plaintiffs filed andserved the amended complaint on November 28, 2016. The InitialCase Management Conference took place on January 12, 2017.Marvell and co-defendants filed separate Motions to Dismiss onJanuary 17, 2017. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss took placeon May 4, 2017, and on May 17, 2017, the Court granted the Motionto Dismiss as to Rashkin and Nagesh and denied the Motion toDismiss as to Sutardja and Marvell. At a Case ManagementConference on June 1, 2017, the Court set a deadline of December29, 2017 for the conclusion of fact discovery and confirmed atrial date of March 5, 2018.

Marvell Technology Group Ltd. is a fabless semiconductor providerof high-performance, application-specific standard products. Itscore strength of expertise is the development of complex System-on-a-Chip devices, leveraging its technology portfolio ofintellectual property in the areas of analog, mixed-signal,digital signal processing, and embedded and standalone integratedcircuits.

MATTEL INC: Securities Lawsuits Consolidated--------------------------------------------Mattel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2017, that the cases Waterford Township Police &Fire Retirement System v. Mattel, Inc., et al. and Lathe v.Mattel, Inc., et al., have been consolidated and a lead plaintiffhas been appointed.

In general, the lawsuits assert the same or similar allegations,including that the defendants artificially inflated Mattel'scommon stock price by knowingly making materially false andmisleading statements and omissions to the investing public aboutretail customer inventory, the alignment between point-of-saleand shipping data, and Mattel's overall financial condition.

The lawsuits allege that the defendants' conduct caused theplaintiffs and other stockholders to purchase Mattel common stockat artificially inflated prices. By an order dated September 29,2017, the two actions were ordered consolidated and a leadplaintiff was appointed.

The lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys'fees, expert fees, and costs. Mattel believes that theallegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defendagainst them. A reasonable estimate of the amount of anypossible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.

Mattel designs, manufactures, and markets a broad variety of toyproducts worldwide which are sold to its customers and directlyto consumers. Mattel is the owner of a portfolio of global brandswith untapped intellectual property potential. Mattel's productsare among the most widely recognized toy products in the world.The company is based in El Segundo, California.

MDC PARTNERS: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismissed Appeal-----------------------------------------------------MDC Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A report filed with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year endedDecember 31, 2016, that the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuithave voluntarily dismissed their appeal.

On July 31, 2015, North Collier Fire Control and Rescue DistrictFirefighter Pension Plan ("North Collier") filed a putative classaction suit in the Southern District of New York, naming asdefendants MDC, CFO David Doft, former CEO Miles Nadal, andformer CAO Mike Sabatino. On December 11, 2015, North Collier andco-lead plaintiff Plymouth County Retirement Association filed anamended complaint, adding two additional defendants, MitchellGendel and Michael Kirby, a former member of MDC's Board ofDirectors. The plaintiff alleges in the amended complaintviolations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, based on allegedly materiallyfalse and misleading statements in the Company's SEC filings andother public statements regarding executive compensation,goodwill accounting, and the Company's internal controls. Byorder granted on September 30, 2016, the U.S. District Courtpresiding over the case granted the Company's motion to dismissthe plaintiffs' amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice.On November 2, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed a notice to appealthe U.S. District Court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals forthe Second Circuit. On February 21, 2017, the plaintiffsvoluntarily dismissed their appeal.

MDC Partners Inc. is an advertising and marketing holding companybased in New York City. MDC is structured as a partnership model,in which it initially acquires a majority stake in its partneragency, leaving a percentage of ownership with the founder. Ithas more than 50 partner firms worldwide.

MDC PARTNERS: Case Management Judge Appointed in Canada Suit------------------------------------------------------------MDC Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A report filed with theU.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year endedDecember 31, 2016, that a case management judge has beenappointed in a class action litigation in Canada.

On August 7, 2015, Roberto Paniccia issued a Statement of Claimin the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the City ofBrantford, Ontario seeking to certify a class action suit namingthe following as defendants: MDC, former CEO Miles S. Nadal,former CAO Michael C. Sabatino, CFO David Doft and BDO U.S.A.LLP. The Plaintiff alleges violations of section 138.1 of theOntario Securities Act (and equivalent legislation in otherCanadian provinces and territories) as well as common lawmisrepresentation based on allegedly materially false andmisleading statements in the Company's public statements, as wellas omitting to disclose material facts with respect to the SECinvestigation.

MDC Partners said "The Company intends to continue to vigorouslydefend this suit. A case management judge has now been appointedbut a date for an initial case conference has not yet been set."

MDC Partners Inc. is an advertising and marketing holding companybased in New York City. MDC is structured as a partnership model,in which it initially acquires a majority stake in its partneragency, leaving a percentage of ownership with the founder. Ithas more than 50 partner firms worldwide.

MDC PARTNERS: Seeks to Determine Scope of Class Definition----------------------------------------------------------MDC Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedMarch 31, 2017, that the company has served a motion to addressthe scope of the proposed class definition in a class actionlawsuit.

On August 7, 2015, Roberto Paniccia issued a Statement of Claimin the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the City ofBrantford, Ontario seeking to certify a class action suit namingthe following as defendants: MDC, former CEO Miles S. Nadal,former CAO Michael C. Sabatino, CFO David Doft and BDO U.S.A.LLP. The Plaintiff alleges violations of section 138.1 of theOntario Securities Act (and equivalent legislation in otherCanadian provinces and territories) as well as common lawmisrepresentation based on allegedly materially false andmisleading statements in the Company's public statements, as wellas omitting to disclose material facts with respect to the SECinvestigation. The Company intends to continue to vigorouslydefend this Canadian suit on the same basis as which the U.S.class action was previously dismissed. A first case managementmeeting has been held. The plaintiff has served his material forleave to proceed under the Securities Act. MDC has served amotion to address the scope of the proposed class definition.

MDC Partners Inc. is an advertising and marketing holding companybased in New York City. MDC is structured as a partnership model,in which it initially acquires a majority stake in its partneragency, leaving a percentage of ownership with the founder. Ithas more than 50 partner firms worldwide.

MDL 2437: USG Still Faces Wallboard Price Fixing Suits------------------------------------------------------USG Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2017, that the company continues to defend itselfin lawsuits, including a class action filed in Canada, related toa conspiracy in fixing wallboard prices.

In 2015, USG, United States Gypsum Company, L&W SupplyCorporation, and seven other wallboard manufacturers were namedas defendants in a lawsuit filed in federal court in Californiaby twelve homebuilders alleging that since at least September2011, U.S. wallboard manufacturers conspired to fix and raise theprice of gypsum wallboard sold in the United States and toeffectuate the alleged conspiracy by ending the practice ofproviding job quotes on wallboard.

The lawsuit was transferred to the United States District Courtfor the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the title In re:Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2437. In thesecond quarter of 2016, the Court dismissed with prejudice theportions of the homebuilders' complaint alleging a conspiracy in2014 and 2015, ruling that there were insufficient factualallegations to allow such a claim to go forward.

The homebuilders' claims alleging a conspiracy prior to 2014 havenot been dismissed, and the case proceeds as to those claims. USGhas agreed to defend and indemnify L&W Supply Corporation withregard to this matter.

Beginning in the third quarter of 2013, class action lawsuitsmaking similar allegations with regard to Canada were filed inQuebec, Ontario and British Columbia courts on behalf ofpurchasers of wallboard in Canada and naming USG Corporation,United States Gypsum Company, CGC Inc., and other wallboardmanufacturers as defendants.

USG Corporation said "We believe that the cost, if any, ofresolving the homebuilders' lawsuit and Canadian class actionlitigation will not have a material effect on our results ofoperations, financial position or cash flows."

USG Corporation is a manufacturer of building products andinnovative building solutions. The company produces a wide rangeof products for use in new residential, new nonresidential, andresidential and nonresidential repair and remodel construction aswell as products used in certain industrial processes.

"any women who are currently, or have formerly been incarcerated at Women's Huron Valley Correctional Facility who were subject to the "chair portion" of the strip search in view of others between November 1, 2010 and to the present and who allege they have suffered a compensable injury as a result of the search; Any women subject to search during 2009-2010 time period before Warden's investigation of feasibility of chair-based strip search; any women subject to search and complaining that they were not given disposable seat covers before the April, 2011 memorandum from the Warden; any women subject to search and complaining that they were not given hand sanitizer before the April, 2011 memorandum from the Warden; any women subject to search and complaining that they were not given disposable seat covers after the April, 2011 memo from the Warden; any women subject to search and complaining that they were not given hand sanitizer after the April, 2011 memo from the Warden; and any women subject to search after December 14, 2011 to present time period after chair-based strip search policy "ended" in writing."

MICROSOFT CORP: Continues to Defend British Columbia Class Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2017, that a six-month oral hearing isexpected to begin in summer 2018, in the British Columbiaantitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits.

Antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits were filedagainst us in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, Canada. Allthree have been certified on behalf of Canadian indirectpurchasers who acquired licenses for Microsoft operating systemsoftware and/or productivity application software between 1998and 2010.

The trial of the British Columbia action commenced in May 2016.The plaintiffs filed their case in chief in August 2016, settingout claims made, authorities, and evidence in support of theirclaims. A six-month oral hearing is expected to begin in summer2018, consisting of cross examination on witness affidavits. TheOntario and Quebec cases are inactive.

Microsoft develops, license, and support a wide range of softwareproducts, services, and devices. The company is based inRedmond, Washington.

MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Suit Still Dormant------------------------------------------------------Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2017, that the Canadian cell phone class action hasbeen dormant for more than three years.

Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and networkoperators, is a defendant in a 2013 class action lawsuit filed inthe Supreme Court of British Columbia by a purported class ofCanadians who have used cellular phones for at least 1,600 hours,including a subclass of users with brain tumors, alleging adversehealth effects from cellular phone use. Microsoft was served withthe complaint in June 2014 and has been substituted for the Nokiadefendants. The litigation has been dormant for more than threeyears.

Microsoft develops, license, and support a wide range of softwareproducts, services, and devices. The company is based inRedmond, Washington.

MIDLAND CREDIT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed-------------------------------------------------------------In the lawsuit styled RACHEL HOLMES, Individually and on Behalfof All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MIDLANDCREDIT MANAGEMENT INC., MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, ALLIED INTERSTATELLC, and ATLANTIC CREDIT & FINANCE INC., the Defendants, Case No.2:17-cv-01752-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court toenter an order certifying proposed classes in this case,appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointingAdemi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other andfurther relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to stay this classcertification motion until an amended motion for classcertification is filed, and that the Court grant the partiesrelief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule andrequirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documentsin support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative classrepresentative's individual stake in the litigation, the SeventhCircuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certificationmotion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefingon the certification motion until discovery could commence.Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7thCir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion asdescribed in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not beburdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expensewhen a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stayshould suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffscontend.

1. granting conditional certification of the above styled action as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act;

2. expediting discovery production by the Defendants, within 15 days of the Court Order, of a complete list of each and every person -- and their last known home address, telephone number, and email addresses -- who was ever employed as an automobile salesperson at the auto mall dealership owned and/or operated by the located at or near the Palmetto Expressway and NW 57th Avenue, Miami between November 2014 and the present;

3. requiring Defendants to format and produce on an expedited basis said list, both in hard copy and electronically in an editable Excel spreadsheet, organized alphabetically from "A" to "Z" and with each person's last known home address and telephone number, and email addresses in a separate field corresponding with each name; and

4. permitting Plaintiffs' counsel to mail a Court-Approved Notice to all such persons about their rights to opt into this collective action by filing a consent to Join Lawsuit.

The Case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titledIn re: Roundup Products Liability MDL 2741. According to an orderentered by the United States Judicial Panel on MultidistrictLitigation, it appears that the actions in the litigation involvequestions of fact that are common to the actions previouslytransferred to the Northern District of California and assignedto Judge John A. Ross. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.

Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnologycorporation based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN]

2. authorizing notice to Potential Opt-Ins of their opportunity to participate in the Settlement and to file any objections to the Settlement; and

3. setting a date for a final approval hearing approximately 75 days after the date of approval of distribution of the notice of settlement.

According to the complaint, on July 22, 2015, Sean Freixa filed acomplaint against Defendants for their failure to pay him anyovertime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.Freixa worked as a Personal Vacation Consultant for DefendantPrestige Services LLC from December 7, 2013 until December 19,2014. During this time, Freixa's primary job was to sell cruisesdirectly to customers. Throughout his employment as a PVC,Defendants paid Freixa $500 per week in salaried wages, pluscommissions in some months on his sales if a minimum number ofsales bookings and other requirements were met. Commissions wereearned on a monthly basis. If any commissions were earned byFreixa, they were paid to him during the subsequent month forcommissions that were actually earned during the preceding month.Defendants did not track Freixa's actual hours worked and Freixawas not paid overtime compensation for hours he worked in excessof 40 hours per week between December 2013 and December 2014.Instead, Defendants have maintained Freixa was not entitled toovertime compensation because he was exempt from the overtimerequirements of the FLSA under the Retail or ServiceEstablishment Exemption, Section 7(i) of the FLSA.

NEULION INC: Bid to Consolidate Nevada Class Action Suits Pending-----------------------------------------------------------------Neulion, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2017, that a motion to consolidate three classaction lawsuits relating to the experienced problem during thestreaming of the Mayweather vs. McGregor pay per view boxingevent is pending.

On the night of August 26, 2017, the Company experienced aproblem during its streaming of the Mayweather vs. McGregor payper view boxing event that affected a significant number ofUFC.TV users. The Company does not believe the issue was systemicor fundamental to the NeuLion Digital Platform or the Company'sunderlying technology. The Company has been working incollaboration with the UFC to process refunds for purchasers whowere unable to view the fight.

On September 1, 2017, the Company was named along with severalother parties in a class action lawsuit in the United StatesDistrict Court for the District of Nevada that claims to havebeen filed on behalf of the affected purchasers. The Company hassubsequently been named, along with other parties, in two othersimilar class action lawsuits in the United States District Courtfor the District of Nevada (filed September 14, 2017) and theUnited States District Court for the Southern District of NewYork (filed September 13, 2017).

A motion to consolidate these three class action lawsuits alongwith several other class action lawsuits filed against unrelatedstreaming providers of the same pay per view event is pending inthe United States District Court for the Southern District of NewYork.

Neulion said "While the Company disagrees with many of theallegations set forth in the class action lawsuits and intends tovigorously defend itself (including but not limited to defensesbased upon the lack of any contractual relationship between theCompany and the affected purchasers), the Company believes thatthe refund program will render the lawsuits moot."

NEW AGE: Has Sent Spam Advertisements, "Abedi" Action Claims------------------------------------------------------------Deeba Abedi, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated v. New Age Medical Clinic PA, and Does 1-10, inclusive,Case No. 1:17-at-00898 (E.D. Cal., December 4, 2017), is broughtagainst the Defendants for negligently contacting the Plaintiffon his cellular telephone for the purpose of notifying thePlaintiff of the various promotions the Defendant offered ontheir products by sending hyperlinks to the Defendant's websites,which qualify as spam advertisements and promotional offers, viatext messages.

"[a]ll persons who worked for [O'Reilly] as a non-exempt, hourly paid employee in California (excluding Assistant Store Managers and Store Managers) at any time from March 29, 2016 until April 2017"; and

Rest Period Policy Class:

"[a]ll person who worked for [O'Reilly] as a non-exempt, hourly paid employee in California (excluding Assistant Store Managers and Store Managers) at any time from March 29, 2013 until the date of certification."

The Court said, "While Davidson does provide evidence that, forsome period of time, O'Reilly had a written rest break policythat violated California law, she provides limited evidenceshowing how, or even if, that policy was consistently applied toall 21,000 proposed class members. Specifically, Davidsonprovided the Court with her own declaration stating that she wasnot aware of receiving any rest period premiums for workingshifts between six and eight hours in length; a copy of thewritten policy at issue; and deposition testimony from O'Reilly'sRule 30(b)(6) designee stating that the policy was provided tomanagers and that managers are charged with implementing thepolicy. Although Davidson asserts in her Reply that thisconstitutes "significant proof," the Court finds that on balance,her evidence fails to implicate any illegal practices. In fact,Davidson's own declaration does not even state that she was everdenied proper rest breaks. Thus, Davison failed to meet herburden. O'Reilly not only maintained a facially defective policy,but also implemented unlawful practices pursuant to the policy."

OLSON RESEARCH: "Fischbein" Suit Seeks to Certify Class-------------------------------------------------------In the lawsuit styled DR. RICHARD E. FISCHBEIN, individually andas the representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons,the Plaintiff, v. THE OLSON RESEARCH GROUP, INC., and John Does1-12, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-05601-GJP (E.D. Pa.), thePlaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class of:

"each person sent one or more telephone facsimile messages after December 13, 2013 from "Olson Research Group" inviting them to participate for payment or compensation in a "marketing research study" through the website www.olsononlinesystems.com."

According to the Company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission filed on August 30, 2017, ashareholder filed on August 25 a putative securities class actionlawsuit in the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of Florida against PetMed Express, Inc. (the "Company")and the Company's principal executive officers, one of whom isalso a director. Relying exclusively on a false and defamatory,anonymous "report" posted on August 23, 2017 on the AureliusValue website claiming that the Company's growth was due in partto marketing addictive animal drugs to opioid addicts, theplaintiff alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company denies thecomplaint's unfounded accusations and intends to defend itselfvigorously against the plaintiff's factually and legallymeritless allegations.

PetMed Express, Inc. is an online pharmacy that sells drugs forpets. Its business directly competes with veterinarians, whoderive some of their income from selling pet drugs, which hascreated problems for the company because it can only fillprescriptions written by a veterinarian. PetMed Express islicensed or authorized to conduct business in all 50 states inthe United States and has received Vet-VIPPS accreditation by theNational Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP).

POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss Minnesota Class Suit Okayed--------------------------------------------------------------Polaris Industries Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2017, that the U.S. District Court for theDistrict of Minnesota has entered an order dismissing an amendedinvestor class action complaint.

In September and October 2016, investors filed two purportedclass action complaints in the United States District Court forthe District of Minnesota naming the Company and two of itsexecutive officers as defendants. On December 12, 2016, theDistrict Court consolidated the two actions and appointed a leadplaintiff and lead counsel. In a later order, the court set adate of March 14, 2017, for the lead plaintiff to file aconsolidated amended complaint or to designate one of the filedcomplaints as the operative pleading. On March 14, 2017, the leadplaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint against theCompany and six current or former executives for allegedviolations of the federal securities laws. The lead plaintiffseeks to represent a class of persons who purchased or acquiredPolaris securities during the time period from February 20, 2015through September 11, 2016.

The amended complaint alleges that, during the proposed classperiod, defendants made materially false or misleading publicstatements about the Company's business, operations, forecasts,and compliance policies relating to certain of its ORV productsand product recalls. The amended complaint asserts claims underSections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and seeks damages in an unspecified amount, pre-judgment andpost-judgment interest, and an award of attorneys' fees andexpenses. In May 2017, the Company and the other defendants fileda motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court had ahearing on the motion on October 4, 2017. By order enteredOctober 13, 2017, the Court dismissed the amended complaint withprejudice.

Polaris Industries Inc. is an American manufacturer ofsnowmobiles, ATV, and neighborhood electric vehicles. The companyalso manufactures motorcycles through its Victory Motorcyclessubsidiary and through the Indian Motorcycle subsidiary which itpurchased in April 2011. The company is based in Medina,Minnesota.

QUALITY SYSTEMS: 9th Cir. En Banc Denies Petition for Rehearing---------------------------------------------------------------Quality Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2017, that the company's petition for rehearing enbanc has been denied.

Quality Systems said "On November 19, 2013, a putative classaction complaint was filed on behalf of the shareholders of ourCompany other than the defendants against us and certain of ourofficers and directors in the United States District Court forthe Central District of California by one of our shareholders."After the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel forthis action, and recaptioned the action In re Quality Systems,Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 8:13-cv-01818-CJC-JPR, leadplaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 7, 2014.

The amended complaint, which is substantially similar to thelitigation described above under the caption "HusseinLitigation," generally alleges that statements made to ourshareholders regarding our financial condition and projectedfuture performance were false and misleading in violation ofSection 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended(the "Exchange Act"), and that the individual defendants areliable for such statements because they are controlling personsunder Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seekscompensatory damages, court costs and attorneys' fees.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint onJune 20, 2014, which the Court granted on October 20, 2014,dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed amotion for reconsideration of the Court's order, which the Courtdenied on January 5, 2015. On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs fileda notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for theNinth Circuit, captioned In re Quality Systems, Inc. SecuritiesLitigation, No. 15-55173. Oral argument was held on December 5,2016. On July 28, 2017, the Ninth Circuit issued a decisionreversing and remanding the District Court's order on our motionto dismiss.

On September 5, 2017, the company filed a petition for rehearingen banc, which was denied on September 29, 2017.

Quality Systems said "We believe that the plaintiffs' claims arewithout merit and continue to defend against them vigorously,including by evaluating potential challenges to the Ninth Circuitdecision. At this time, we are unable to estimate the probabilityor the amount of liability, if any, related to this claim."

Quality Systems, Inc., known to its clients as NextGenHealthcare, provides software, services and analytics solutionsto the ambulatory care market. The company is a healthcareinformation technology and services company that delivers thefoundational capabilities to organizations that want to promotehealthy communities. The company is based in Irvine, California.

The Court sets a case management conference for January 16, 2018,at 2:00 p.m. The parties shall meet and confer and submit a jointcase management statement by January 9, 2018. The joint statementshould include a proposed case schedule through trial, as well asa brief discussion of any outstanding issues to resolve beforetrial.

SERVICE CORP: Dismissal of "Moulton" Suit under Appeal------------------------------------------------------Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Reportfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that plaintiffs in thecase, Karen Moulton, Individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., ServiceCorporation International and others, Case No. 2013-5636 haveappealed the case dismissal.

The Karen Moulton, Individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., ServiceCorporation International and others ; Case No. 2013-5636; in theCivil District Court Parish of New Orleans., was filed as a classaction in June 2013 against SCI and the Company's subsidiary inconnection with SCI's acquisition of Stewart Enterprises, Inc.

The plaintiffs allege that SCI aided and abetted breaches offiduciary duties by Stewart Enterprises and its board ofdirectors in negotiating the combination of Stewart Enterpriseswith a subsidiary of SCI. The plaintiffs seek damages concerningthe combination. The company filed exceptions to the plaintiffs'complaint that were granted in June 2014. Thus, subject toappeals, SCI will no longer be party to the suit. The case hascontinued against its subsidiary Stewart Enterprises and itsformer individual directors. However, in October 2016, the courtentered a judgment dismissing all of plaintiffs' claims.Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.

Service Corporation said "We cannot quantify our ultimateliability, if any, for the payment of damages."

Service Corporation International is North America's largestprovider of deathcare products and services, with a network offuneral service locations and cemeteries unequaled in geographicscale and reach. The company is based in Houston, Texas.

SERVICE CORP: Agreement in Principle Reached in "Allard" Suit-------------------------------------------------------------Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Reportfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the parties inthe case entitled, Linda Allard, on behalf of herself and allothers similarly situated v. SCI Direct, Inc., have reached asettlement agreement.

The case Linda Allard, on behalf of herself and all otherssimilarly situated v. SCI Direct, Inc., Case No 16-1033; in theUnited States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, wasfiled in June 2016 as a class action under the Telephone ConsumerProtection Act (the Act).

Plaintiff alleges she received telemarketing telephone calls thatwere made with a prerecorded voice or made by an automatictelephone dialing system in violation of the Act. Plaintiff seeksactual and statutory damages, as well as attorney's fees andcosts. The parties reached a settlement of the lawsuit asreported in our Form 8-K filed on August 30, 2017.

The settlement agreement is subject to court approval and noticeto the class. The financial terms of the settlement call for SCIDirect to pay $15.0 million, of which $3.5 million will be paidby its insurer.

Service Corporation International is North America's largestprovider of deathcare products and services, with a network offuneral service locations and cemeteries unequaled in geographicscale and reach. The company is based in Houston, Texas.

SMARTHEAT INC: Settles Class Action Suit for $120,000-----------------------------------------------------SmartHeat Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year endedDecember 31, 2016, that the company had entered into an agreementto settle all claims in a US securities class action lawsuit for$120,000.

The Company said, "On August 31, 2012, a putative class actionlawsuit, Steven Leshinsky v. James Wang, et al., which purportedto allege federal securities law claims against the Company andcertain of its former officers and directors, was filed in theUnited States District Court for the Southern District of NewYork. Thereafter, two plaintiffs filed competing motions to beappointed lead plaintiff in the proceeding. A lead plaintiff wasappointed and an amended complaint was filed on January 28, 2013,by the Rosen Law Firm. The amended complaint included OliverBialowons, our President, and Michael Wilhelm, our former ChiefFinancial Officer, as defendants in the proceeding though theywere not officers of the Company during the alleged classperiod."

"A second amended complaint was filed on April 8, 2013, under thecaption Stream Sicav, Dharanendra Rai et al. v. James Jun Wang ,SmartHeat, Inc. et al., removing Messrs. Wilhelm and Bialowons asdefendants. The second amended complaint alleges two countsagainst the Company, both asserting violations of the federalsecurities laws arising from alleged insider sales or managementsales of securities and alleged false disclosures relating tothose sales. On May 8, 2013, the Company filed a motion todismiss the second amended complaint which was denied. On March17, 2014 the court, denied, the lead plaintiff's motion for classcertification, without prejudice. On August 6, 2014, the leadplaintiff once again filed a motion for class certification. OnSeptember 19, 2014, the Company filed an opposition to the leadplaintiff's motion for class certification, to which plaintifffiled a response on October 20, 2014. By Opinion and Order datedJanuary 21, 2015, the Court denied plaintiffs' classcertification motion, finding that it failed to satisfy therequirements of Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23 for typicality, adequacy andpredominance. Specifically, the Court found that plaintiffs'theory of liability required a trade-by-trade inquiry as towhether the sale of the locked-up shares resulted in priceinflation of the company's stock, and that, as a result, theinjury to all class members could not be established by commonproof. In addition to finding a lack of predominance of commonissues, the Court expressed substantial concerns about theadequacy of the class representative, and that his claims weretypical of other class members. The Court also expressed doubtsas to how plaintiffs would establish damages. The Court's denialof class certification was without prejudice, and the Court gaveplaintiffs until February 17, 2015 to file a 'far more rigorous,and a far more convincing submission. . .". The pleadings andcourt orders are publicly available.

"The Company entered into an agreement to settle all claims in aUS securities class action lawsuit. No findings of anywrongdoings were ever made against SmartHeat, any current orformer officer or director of Smartheat or any of the defendants,and the Company and all other defendants continue to deny anywrongdoing. The default judgment previously entered againstJames Jun Wang was vacated and was dismissed with prejudice. TheCompany entered into the settlement in order to avoid furthercost of defending any of the purported actions. According to thesettlement, the Company paid the plaintiffs $120,000. In return,the plaintiffs dismissed all claims against the Company and allof the individual defendants with prejudice. As a result of thesettlement, the case will not be allowed to be re-filed."

SmartHeat added, "The settlement is not an admission ofwrongdoing or acceptance of fault by the Company or any of theindividual defendants. The Company has and continues to assertthat the allegations made in the consolidated lawsuits lack meritand no evidence was ever asserted supporting the allegations madein the consolidated lawsuits. The Company has nevertheless agreedto the settlement in order to eliminate the uncertainties, burdenand expense of further litigation. The Company believes thatputting this matter behind it is in the best interest of itscustomers, employees and shareholders so that it can remainfocused on growing and strengthening its business."

SmartHeat Inc., formerly known as Pacific Goldrim Resources,Inc., through its operating subsidiaries in China and Germany,designed, manufactured, sold and serviced plate heat exchangers("PHEs"), PHE Units, which combine PHEs with various pumps,temperature sensors, valves and automated control systems, heatmeters and heat pumps for use in commercial and residentialbuildings.

SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: New Trial Sought in Arkansas Royalty Suit--------------------------------------------------------------SouthWestern Energy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2017, that the plaintiff in theArkansas Royalty Litigation has moved for a new trial and thecourt has not yet ruled on that motion.

In June 2017, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Companyon all counts in Smith v. SEECO, Inc. et al., a class action inthe United States District Court for the Eastern District ofArkansas. The plaintiff had alleged that the Company hadunderpaid lessors of lands in Arkansas by deducting from royaltypayments costs for gathering, transportation and compression ofnatural gas in excess of what is permitted by the relevant leasesand asserted claims for, among other things, breach of contract,fraud, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment and violation ofcertain Arkansas statutes. Following the verdict, the courtentered judgment in favor of the Company on all claims. Theplaintiff has moved for a new trial, and the court has not yetruled on that motion.

The plaintiff class in Smith comprises the vast majority oflessors of lands in Arkansas for which leases permit deductionsfor these types of costs. Most of the remaining lessors arenamed plaintiffs or members of classes in other pending lawsuits.In particular, two actions on behalf of certified classes of onlyArkansas residents pending in state courts in Arkansas (one isset for trial during the third quarter of 2018; the other doesnot have a trial date) and three cases (all currently stayed)that were filed in Arkansas state court on behalf of a total of248 individually named plaintiffs, two of which have been removedto federal court, have been assigned to the same court that heldthe Smith trial.

SouthWestern "Management believes that, as the Smith juryconcluded, the deductions from royalty payments were calculatedin accordance with the leases. The Company currently does notanticipate that these other cases are likely to have a materialadverse effect on the results of operations, financial positionor cash flows of the Company."

Southwestern Energy Company is an independent energy companyengaged in natural gas, oil and NGL exploration, development andproduction ("E&P"). The Company is also focused on creating andcapturing additional value through its natural gas gathering andmarketing businesses ("Midstream Services"). The company is basedin Texas.

"all persons who, while in the State of California, and between July 15, 2011, and the present, purchased from Stein Mart one or more items at any Stein Mart store in the State of California with a price tag that contained a "Compare At" price which was higher than the price listed as the Stain Mart sale price on the price tag, and who have not received a refund or credit for each of their purchase(s)."

3. appointing as counsel for the Class attorneys Douglas Caiafa of Douglas Caiafa, A Professional Law Corporation, Christopher J. Morosoff of the Law Office of Christopher J. Morosoff, and Reuben Nathan of Nathan & Associates; and

4. ordering the parties to meet and confer and present this Court, within fifteen days of an order granting class certification, a proposed notice to the certified class.

TERRAFORM POWER: Jan. 31 Hearing on $14.8MM Deal in "Chamblee"--------------------------------------------------------------A hearing to consider final approval of the settlement in theChamblee class action lawsuit is scheduled for January 31, 2018.

TerraForm Power, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedJune 30, 2017, that the parties in the Chamblee class action haveagreed in principle to a settlement of $14.8 million.

On April 4, 2016, a securities class action under federalsecurities laws (Chamblee v. TerraForm Power, Inc., et al., CaseNo. 1:16-cv-00981-JFM) (the "Chamblee Class Action") was filed inthe United States District Court for the District of Marylandagainst the Company and two of its former officers (one of whichwas also a director of the Company) asserting claims underSection 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of a putative class. TheComplaint alleges that the defendants made materially false andmisleading statements regarding the Company's business,operational and compliance policies, including with respect todisclosures regarding SunEdison's internal controls and theCompany's reliance on SunEdison. An amended complaint was filedon September 26, 2016 and a former officer and director of theCompany were added as defendants.

On October 4, 2016, the Judicial Panel on MultidistrictLitigation transferred this matter to the U.S. District Court forthe Southern District of New York (SDNY) for consolidated orcoordinated pretrial proceedings. On December 19, 2016, aninitial case management conference was held in the multidistrictlitigation proceedings in the SDNY. The Court entered an orderrequiring all parties to the multidistrict litigation to mediateand entered a partial stay of all proceedings through March 31,2017. On March 24, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amendedcomplaint adding three additional directors and officers of theCompany as defendants, as well as additional factual allegations.On June 9, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the case.

After mediation, the parties agreed in principle to a settlementof $14.8 million conditioned on, among other things, funding ofthe settlement by the Company's directors' and officers'liability insurance providers to the satisfaction of the Company.

In its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September30, 2017, Terraform Power said the parties have agreed that$13.63 million of the settlement will be covered by the Company'sdirectors' and officers' liability insurance providers. OnSeptember 11, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court granted approval of theuse of $13.63 million of proceeds to fund the settlement. TheCompany, the Company's directors' and officers' liabilityinsurance providers and the Company's co-defendants are in theprocess of finalizing documentation governing the use of the$13.63 million of proceeds from the insurance. On September 14,2017, the U.S. District Court for the SDNY preliminarily approvedthe settlement and provided the Company with an expresstermination right in the event that the settlement is not timelyfunded with proceeds from the directors' and officers' liabilityinsurance. A hearing on final approval of the settlement isscheduled for January 31, 2018.

"If a final resolution is achieved on the settlement, theCompany's contribution to the settlement amount, net of theamount to be covered by insurance, would be $1.13 million. TheCompany reserved $1.13 million for its estimated probable lossrelated to this complaint as of December 31, 2016, which is theamount the Company would be prepared to fund the settlement outof its own funds. If the conditional settlement offer fails forany reason, including because the insurers do not make therequisite contribution to the settlement amount, the Companywould continue to vigorously contest this claim," TerraForm Powersaid.

The Company added that it has agreed to issue additional sharesof Class A common stock to Orion Holdings for no additionalconsideration in respect of the Company's net losses, such asout-of-pocket losses, damages, costs, fees and expenses, upon thefinal resolution of the Chamblee Class Action. The Company andTerraForm Global, Inc. have entered into an agreement pursuant towhich TerraForm Global, Inc. has agreed to indemnify andreimburse the Company for certain costs, fees and expensesrelated to the defense or settlement of the Chamblee Class Actionthat are not covered by insurance (excluding the $1.13 millionsettlement contribution). As a result, as of the date hereof, theCompany does not expect to incur any material fees or expenses(excluding the $1.13 million settlement contribution) inconnection with the Chamblee Class Action that would not becovered by insurance or indemnified and reimbursed by TerraFormGlobal, Inc.

TerraForm Power, Inc. and its subsidiaries is a dividend growth-oriented company formed to own and operate contracted clean powergeneration assets. The company's business objective is to acquireassets with high-quality contracted cash flows, primarily fromowning clean power generation assets serving utility andcommercial customers. The company's portfolio consists ofrenewable energy facilities located in the United States(including Puerto Rico), Canada, Chile and the United Kingdomwith a combined nameplate capacity of 2,606.7 MW as of June 30,2017.

TerraForm Power is a holding company and its sole asset is anequity interest in TerraForm Power, LLC, or Terra LLC. TerraFormPower is the managing member of Terra LLC and operates, controlsand consolidates the business affairs of Terra LLC.

TILLYS INC: $6.2MM Estimated Loss for "Minniti" Case Settlement---------------------------------------------------------------Tilly's Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedJuly 29, 2017, that the company recorded an estimated lossprovision of $6.2 million in connection with the proposedsettlement in the case Lauren Minniti, on behalf of herself andall others similarly situated, v. Tilly's, Inc., United StatesDistrict Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 0:17-cv-60237-FAM.

On January 30, 2017, the plaintiff filed a putative class actionlawsuit against the Company, alleging violations of the TelephoneConsumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA"). Specifically, thecomplaint asserts a violation of the TCPA for allegedly sendingunsolicited automated messages to the cellular telephones of theplaintiff and others. The complaint seeks class certificationand damages of $500 per violation plus treble damages under theTCPA.

Tilly's said, "We filed our initial response to this matter withthe court in March 2017. The parties attended a mediation inJune 2017. In July 2017, the parties reached an agreement inprinciple to settle this matter, subject to court approval andthe execution of a final settlement agreement. We recorded anestimated loss provision of $6.2 million in connection with theproposed settlement in the second quarter ended July 29, 2017."

* * *

Tilly's Inc. also said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedJuly 29, 2017, that the appeal related to a class action lawsuitin California remains pending.

In September 2015, the plaintiff filed a putative class actionlawsuit against the Company, alleging violations of California'swage and hour rules and regulations and unfair competition law."Specifically, the complaint asserted a violation of theapplicable California Wage Order for alleged failure to payreporting time pay, as well as several derivative claims. Thecomplaint sought certification of a class, unspecified damages,unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, and attorneys' fees. InJune 2016, the court granted our demurrer to the plaintiff'scomplaint, on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to state acause of action against Tilly's," the Company said.

The Company added, "Specifically, the court agreed with us thatthe plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-time pay fails as amatter of law as the plaintiff and other putative class membersdid not "report for work" with respect to certain shifts on whichthe plaintiff's claims are based." At the hearing on theplaintiff's demurrer, the court granted the plaintiff leave toamend her complaint. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint inJuly 2016, which brought the same claims as her originalcomplaint but added various factual allegations. In August 2016,we filed a demurrer as to the plaintiff's amended complaint, onthe grounds that the plaintiff's amended complaint still failedto state a cause of action against Tilly's, for the same reasonsthat the court granted our demurrer as to the plaintiff'soriginal complaint.

In November 2016, the court entered a written order sustainingour demurrer, and dismissing all of plaintiff's causes of actionwith prejudice. In January 2017, the plaintiff filed an appealof the order to the California Court of Appeal, and theplaintiff's opening brief was most recently due to be filed onJuly 31, 2017, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, but it wasnot filed on that date. On August 16, 2017, the clerk of theCalifornia Court of Appeal sent a letter to the parties advisingof plaintiff's default in filing the opening brief, and settingthe deadline for plaintiffs to do so within 15 days, perCalifornia Rule of Court Rule 8.220. Accordingly, theplaintiff's opening brief was due to be filed on August 31, 2017.

Tilly's said, "We have defended this case vigorously and willcontinue to do so."

Tilly's Inc. is a destination youth culture specialty retailer ofcasual apparel, footwear and accessories for young men, youngwomen, boys and girls. The company is based in Irvine,California.

TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Suits over ET Plus System Still Ongoing-----------------------------------------------------------Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2017, that the company continues to defenditself in various suits related to ET Plus guardrail endterminal.

The Company was served in a lawsuit filed November 26, 2014,titled Hamilton County, Illinois and Macon County, Illinois,Individually and on behalf of all Other Counties in the State ofIllinois vs. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity HighwayProducts, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-1320 (Southern District ofIllinois). This complaint was later amended to substitute St.Clair County, Illinois for Hamilton County as a lead plaintiffand to expand the proposed class.

The case was brought by plaintiffs for and on behalf ofthemselves and the other 101 counties of the State of Illinoisand on behalf of cities, villages, incorporated towns, andtownship governments of the State of Illinois. The plaintiffsalleged that the Company and Trinity Highway Products made aseries of un-tested modifications to the ET Plus and falselycertified that the modified ET Plus was acceptable for use on thenation's highways based on federal testing standards and approvalfor federal-aid reimbursement. The plaintiffs also alleged breachof implied warranties, violation of the Illinois UniformDeceptive Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment, for whichplaintiffs sought actual damages related to purchases of the ETPlus, compensatory damages for establishing a common fund forclass members, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, andinjunctive relief.

On September 1, 2017, plaintiffs St. Clair County and MaconCounty, Illinois voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit withprejudice and without receiving any payment by the Company inconnection therewith.

There are two pending class action lawsuits involving claimspertaining to the ET Plus that are currently pending. The Companyhas been served in a lawsuit filed February 11, 2015, titled TheCorporation of the City of Stratford and Trinity Industries,Inc., Trinity Highway Products, LLC, and Trinity IndustriesCanada, Inc., Case No. 15-2622 CP, pending in Ontario SuperiorCourt of Justice. The alleged class in this matter has beenidentified as persons in Canada who purchased and/or used an ETPlus guardrail end terminal.

The plaintiff alleges that Trinity Industries, Inc., TrinityHighway Products, LLC, and Trinity Industries Canada, Inc.,failed to warn of dangers associated with undisclosedmodifications to the ET Plus guardrail end terminals, breached animplied warranty, breached a duty of care, and were negligent.The plaintiff is seeking $400 million in compensatory damages and$100 million in punitive damages. Alternatively, the plaintiffclaims the right to an accounting or other restitution remedy fordisgorgement of the revenues generated by the sale of themodified ET Plus in Canada.

The Company has been served in a lawsuit filed November 5, 2015,titled Jackson County, Missouri, individually and on behalf of aclass of others similarly situated vs. Trinity Industries, Inc.and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 1516-CV23684 (CircuitCourt of Jackson County, Missouri). The case is being brought byplaintiff for and on behalf of itself and all Missouri countieswith a population of 10,000 or more persons, including the Cityof St. Louis, and the State of Missouri's transportationauthority.

The plaintiff alleges that the Company and Trinity HighwayProducts did not disclose design changes to the ET Plus and theseallegedly undisclosed design changes made the ET Plus allegedlydefective, unsafe, and unreasonably dangerous. The plaintiffalleges product liability negligence, product liability strictliability, and negligently supplying dangerous instrumentalityfor supplier's business purposes.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, interest, attorneys'fees and costs, and in the alternative plaintiff seeks adeclaratory judgment that the ET Plus is defective, the Company'sconduct was unlawful, and class-wide costs and expensesassociated with removing and replacing the ET Plus throughoutMissouri.

The Company believes each of these pending county and municipalclass action lawsuits is without merit and intends to vigorouslydefend all allegations. While the financial impacts of these twocounty and municipal class action lawsuits are currently unknown,they could be material.

Based on the information currently available to the Company, wecurrently do not believe that a loss is probable in any one ormore of the actions described under "State, county, and municipalactions," therefore no accrual has been included in theaccompanying consolidated financial statements. Because of thecomplexity of these actions as well as the current status ofcertain of these actions, we are not able to estimate a range ofpossible losses with respect to any one or more of these actions.

Trinity Industries, Inc. provides various products and servicesto the energy, chemical, agriculture, transportation, andconstruction sectors in the United States and internationally.The company is based in Dallas, Texas.

TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Stayed--------------------------------------------------------Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2017, that a consolidated shareholder classaction suit against the Company and other defendants, has beenstayed and remains administratively closed pending the conclusionof any appeal in the Joshua Harman FCA case.

On January 11, 2016, the previously reported cases styled ThomasNemky, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situatedv. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E.Perry, Case No. (2:15-CV-00732) ("Nemky") and Richard J. Isolde,Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v.Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry,Case No. (3:15-CV-2093) ("Isolde"), were consolidated in theDistrict Court for the Northern District of Texas, with allfuture filings to be filed in the Isolde case.

On March 9, 2016, the Court appointed the Department of theTreasury of the State of New Jersey and its Division ofInvestment and the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fundand United Association Local Union Officers & Employees' PensionFund as co-lead plaintiffs ("Lead Plaintiffs"). On May 11, 2016,the Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Complaint allegingdefendants Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, James E.Perry, and Gregory B. Mitchell violated Section 10(b) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgatedthereunder, and defendants Mr. Wallace and Mr. Perry violatedSection 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by makingmaterially false and misleading statements and/or by failing todisclose material facts about Trinity's ET Plus and the FCA casestyled Joshua Harman, on behalf of the United States of America,Plaintiff/Relator v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Defendant, CaseNo. 2:12-cv-00089-JRG (E.D. Tex.).

On August 18, 2016, Trinity, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Perry, and Mr.Mitchell filed motions to dismiss Lead Plaintiffs ConsolidatedComplaint, which remain pending. On March 13, 2017, the Courtgranted defendant's motion to stay and administratively closeproceedings pending Fifth Circuit appeal. The Isolde matter isstayed and remains administratively closed pending the conclusionof any appeal in the Joshua Harman FCA case. Trinity, Mr.Wallace, Mr. Perry, and Mr. Mitchell deny and intend tovigorously defend against the allegations in the Isolde case.

Trinity Industries said "Based on the information available tothe Company, we currently do not believe that a loss is probablewith respect to this shareholder class action; therefore noaccrual has been included in the accompanying consolidatedfinancial statements. Because of the complexity of these actionsas well as the current status of certain of these actions, we arenot able to estimate a range of possible losses with respect tothese matters."

Trinity Industries, Inc. provides various products and servicesto the energy, chemical, agriculture, transportation, andconstruction sectors in the United States and internationally.The company is based in Dallas, Texas.

THOMAS AGENCY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Abby" Action Claims---------------------------------------------------------------Logan Abby, on behalf of himself and a class of similarlysituated individuals v. The Thomas Agency, Case No. 2:17-cv-00474-JDL (D. Me., December 4, 2017), seeks to stop theDefendants' practice of using an artificial and prerecorded voiceto deliver a message without prior express consent of the calledparty.

The Defendants are ERIC D. HARGAN, in his official capacity asActing Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; R.ALEXANDER ACOSTA, in his official capacity as Secretary of U.S.Department of Labor; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; STEVEN MNUCHIN, inhis official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of theTreasury; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; DOES 1-100.

UNITIL CORP: Mass. Appeals Court Drops Town of Lunenburg Suit-------------------------------------------------------------Unitil Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2017, that a motion to dismiss for failure toperfect the appeal has been granted by the Massachusetts AppealsCourt.

The Town filed a notice of appeal, but failed to perfect itsappeal with the Court in a timely manner. A motion to dismiss forfailure to perfect the appeal was granted by the MassachusettsAppeals Court in August 2017.

In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filedagainst Unitil's Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg, inMassachusetts' Worcester Superior Court (the "Court"), (captionedBellermann et al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company).The Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, includingthe cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel sources,emotional and physical pain and suffering and property damagesallegedly incurred by customers in connection with the loss ofelectric service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's serviceterritory in December 2008. The Massachusetts Supreme JudicialCourt issued an order denying class certification status in July2016, though the plaintiffs' individual claims remain pending.

The Company continues to believe that this suit is without meritand will continue to defend itself vigorously. Based uponinformation furnished by counsel and others, the Company believesthat the ultimate resolution of this suit will not have amaterial impact on its financial position, operating results orcash flows.

The Town of Lunenburg filed a separate action in the Courtarising out of the December 2008 ice storm. The Court granted theCompany's Motion for Summary Judgment on all counts in December2016 and dismissed the Town's complaint. The Town filed a noticeof appeal, but failed to perfect its appeal with the Court in atimely manner. A motion to dismiss for failure to perfect theappeal was granted by the Massachusetts Appeals Court in August2017.

Unitil Corporation, a public utility holding company, engages inthe distribution of electricity and natural gas in the UnitedStates. It operates through three segments: Utility GasOperations, Utility Electric Operations, and Non-Regulated.Unitil Corporation was incorporated in 1984 and is headquarteredin Hampton, New Hampshire.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on December 13,2017, a Status hearing held on Dec. 13. Parties report that asettlement has been reached in principle. Plaintiff's motion forclass certification is withdrawn. Another status hearing is setfor Jan. 30, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. If a stipulation to dismiss isfiled prior to status date, no appearance is required.

VOYA FINANCIAL: Faces "Barnes" Suit Over Breach of Contract-----------------------------------------------------------Robert Barnes, individually and behalf of all others similarlysituated v. Voya Financial, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-09493-JFK(S.D.N.Y., December 4, 2017), is a class action for breach ofcontract and conversion to recover amounts that the Defendantcharged the Plaintiff and the proposed class in excess of theamounts authorized by the express terms of their life insurancepolicies.

Voya Financial, Inc. operates a financial, retirement, investmentand insurance company based in New York, New York.

WALGREENS BOOTS: Class Certification Bid in Chicago Suit Underway-----------------------------------------------------------------Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filedwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscalyear ended August 31, 2017, that plaintiffs' motion for classcertification remains pending.

On April 10, 2015, a putative shareholder filed a securitiesclass action in federal court in the Northern District ofIllinois against Walgreen Co. and certain former officers ofWalgreen Co. The action asserts claims for violation of thefederal securities laws arising out of certain public statementsthe Company made regarding its former fiscal 2016 goals. On June16, 2015, the Court entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff.

Pursuant to the Court's order, lead plaintiff filed an amendedcomplaint on August 17, 2015, and defendants moved to dismiss theamended complaint on October 16, 2015. Lead plaintiff filed aresponse to the motion to dismiss on December 22, 2015, anddefendants filed a reply in support of the motion on February 5,2016. On September 30, 2016, the Court issued an order grantingin part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss.Defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint onNovember 4, 2016 and filed an amended answer on January 16, 2017.Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on April21, 2017.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company whichoperates the second largest chain in the United States. Thecompany is based in Deerfield, Illinois.

WALGREENS BOOTS: Pennsylvania Class Action Suits Still Ongoing--------------------------------------------------------------Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filedwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscalyear ended August 31, 2017, that the company continues to defenditself in class actions filed in the State of Pennsylvania in theCourt of Common Pleas of Cumberland County and the United StatesDistrict Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

As of August 31, 2017, the Company was aware of two putativeclass action lawsuits filed by purported Rite Aid stockholdersagainst Rite Aid and its board of directors, Walgreens BootsAlliance and Victoria Merger Sub, Inc. for claims arising out ofthe transactions contemplated by the original Merger Agreement(prior to its amendment on January 29, 2017) (such transactions,the "Rite Aid Transactions"). One Rite Aid action was filed inthe State of Pennsylvania in the Court of Common Pleas ofCumberland County (the "Pennsylvania action"), and one action wasfiled in the United States District Court for the Middle Districtof Pennsylvania (the "federal action").

The Pennsylvania action primarily alleged that the Rite Aid boardof directors breached its fiduciary duties in connection with theRite Aid Transactions by, among other things, agreeing to anunfair and inadequate price, agreeing to deal protection devicesthat preclude other bidders from making successful competingoffers for Rite Aid, and failing to disclose all allegedlymaterial information concerning the proposed merger, and alsoalleged that Walgreens Boots Alliance and Victoria Merger Sub,Inc. aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.The federal action alleged, among other things, that Rite Aid andits board of directors disseminated an allegedly false andmisleading proxy statement in connection with the Rite AidTransactions.

The plaintiffs in the federal action also filed a motion forpreliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the Rite Aid shareholdervote relating to the Rite Aid Transactions. That motion wasdenied and plaintiffs agreed to stay the litigation until afterthe Rite Aid Transactions closed. On March 17, 2017, plaintiffsmoved to lift the stay to allow plaintiffs to file an amendedcomplaint. On August 4, 2017, that motion was granted for thelimited purpose of allowing plaintiffs to file a motion seekingleave to amend their complaint in light of the termination of theMerger Agreement. Plaintiffs filed such a motion on September 22,2017. The Company filed its response on October 6, 2017.Plaintiffs filed their reply, and the motion is fully briefed.The court has not set a hearing date or indicated when it willissue a ruling.

The Company was also named as a defendant in eight putative classaction lawsuits filed in the Court of Chancery of the State ofDelaware (the "Delaware actions"). Those actions wereconsolidated, and plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminaryinjunction seeking to enjoin the Rite Aid shareholder voterelating to the Rite Aid Transactions. That motion was denied andthe plaintiffs in the Delaware actions agreed to settle thismatter for an immaterial amount. The Delaware actions all havebeen dismissed.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company whichoperates the second largest chain in the United States. Thecompany is based in Deerfield, Illinois.

On June 18, 2014, a group of institutional investors filed acivil complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,New York County, against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., ("Wells FargoBank") in its capacity as trustee under 276 residential mortgagebacked securities ("RMBS") trusts, which was later amended onJuly 18, 2014, to increase the number of trusts to 284 RMBStrusts. On November 24, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion tovoluntarily dismiss the state court action without prejudice.That same day, a group of institutional investors filed aputative class action complaint in the United States DistrictCourt for the Southern District of New York (the "DistrictCourt") against Wells Fargo Bank, alleging claims against thebank in its capacity as trustee for 274 RMBS trusts (the "FederalCourt Complaint"). In December 2014, the plaintiffs' motion tovoluntarily dismiss their original state court action wasgranted.

As with the prior state court action, the Federal Court Complaintis one of six similar complaints filed contemporaneously againstRMBS trustees (Deutsche Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank of New YorkMellon and US Bank) by a group of institutional investorplaintiffs. The Federal Court Complaint against Wells Fargo Bankalleges that the trustee caused losses to investors and assertscauses of action based upon, among other things, the trustee'salleged failure to: (i) notify and enforce repurchase obligationsof mortgage loan sellers for purported breaches ofrepresentations and warranties, (ii) notify investors of allegedevents of default, and (iii) abide by appropriate standards ofcare following alleged events of default. Relief sought includesmoney damages in an unspecified amount, reimbursement ofexpenses, and equitable relief.

Other cases alleging similar causes of action have been filedagainst Wells Fargo Bank and other trustees in the District Courtby RMBS investors in these and other transactions, and thesecases against Wells Fargo Bank are proceeding before the sameDistrict Court judge. A similar complaint was also filed May 27,2016 in New York state court by a different plaintiff investor.

On January 19, 2016, an order was entered in connection with theFederal Court Complaint in which the District Court declined toexercise jurisdiction over 261 trusts at issue in the FederalCourt Complaint; the District Court also allowed plaintiffs tofile amended complaints as to the remaining, non-dismissedtrusts, if they so chose, and three amended complaints have beenfiled. On December 17, 2016, the investor plaintiffs in the 261trusts dismissed from the Federal Court Complaint filed a newcomplaint in New York state court (the "State Court Complaint").On July 11, 2017, certain PIMCO investment funds filed a civilcomplaint relating to Wells Fargo Bank's setting aside reservesfor legal fees and expenses in connection with the liquidation of11 RMBS trusts at issue in the State Court Complaint. Thecomplaint seeks, among other relief, declarations that WellsFargo Bank is not entitled to (i) indemnification from, (ii)advancement of funds from, or (iii) taking reserves from trustfunds for legal fees and expenses it incurs in defending theclaims in the State Court Complaint.

With respect to the foregoing litigations, Wells Fargo Bankbelieves plaintiffs' claims are without merit and intends tocontest the claims vigorously, but there can be no assurances asto the outcome of the litigations or the possible impact of thelitigations on Wells Fargo Bank or the RMBS trusts.

"all persons residing in the United States who made a credit or debit card purchase at any Wendy's location affected by the Data Breach from October 1, 2015 through June 9, 2016 (the "Nationwide Class")".

Additionally, the Plaintiffs seek certification of consumerprotection claims under New York, New Jersey, and Tennessee law.

According to the complaint, Wendy's failure to implement adequatedata security to protect the payment card data and otherpersonally-identifiable information ("PII") of its customers(collectively, "Data") resulted in a widespread data breach. As aresult of Wendy's shoddy security practices, this data breachremained undetected for a 9-month period, affected more than1,000 restaurants, and resulted in the Class members' Data beingexposed to and accessed by cyber-criminals (the "Data Breach").This case is naturally suited for resolution on a class-widebasis, the Plaintiffs contend. Each named Plaintiff and eachabsent class member was injured by the same Data Breach. Wendy'sinadequate data security practices are at the root of each claim.Whether and to what extent Wendy's had an obligation to providesecurity of its customer's Data and whether such obligations wereviolated is the same question and answer for each putative classmember. The remedies available to Class members will also besimilar, and all Class members would be entitled to the sameinjunctive relief to protect them from future harm. BecauseWendy's data security practices uniformly apply to all Classmembers, common issues will predominate the trial of all claimsarising from the Data Breach.

WESTERN DIGITAL: Discovery in SD Cards Class Action Suit Stayed---------------------------------------------------------------Western Digital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterlyperiod ended September 29, 2017, that discovery is presentlystayed until after completion of the pleading stage in the casefiled by indirect purchasers of SD cards.

In March 2011, a complaint was filed against SanDisk, SD-3C,Panasonic, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Toshiba andToshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. with the U.S.District Court for the Northern District of California. Thelawsuit purports to be on behalf of a nationwide class ofindirect purchasers of SD cards. The complaint asserts claimsunder federal antitrust laws and California antitrust and unfaircompetition laws, as well as common law claims. The complaintseeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and fees andcosts. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired toartificially inflate the royalty costs associated withmanufacturing SD cards, which in turn allegedly caused theplaintiffs to pay higher prices for SD cards.

The allegations are similar to and incorporate allegations inSamsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corp., et al.,. InNovember 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss theplaintiffs' federal law claims. In October 2016, the DistrictCourt granted the defendants' motion with leave to amend and thedefendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' remainingclaims. Discovery is presently stayed until after completion ofthe pleading stage.

Western Digital said "The Company intends to defend itselfvigorously in this matter."

Western Digital Corporation is a leading developer, manufacturerand provider of data storage devices and solutions that addressthe evolving needs of the information technology ("IT") industryand the infrastructure that enables the proliferation of data invirtually every industry. The company is based in San Jose,California.

WESTERN DIGITAL: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Action Denied--------------------------------------------------------------Western Digital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterlyperiod ended September 29, 2017, that the District Court hasdenied the defendants' motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit.

Beginning in March 2015, SanDisk and two of its officers, SanjayMehrotra and Judy Bruner, were named in three putative classaction lawsuits filed with the U.S. District Court for theNorthern District of California. Two complaints are allegedlybrought on behalf of a class of purchasers of SanDisk'ssecurities between October 2014 and March 2015, and one isbrought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of SanDisk'ssecurities between April 2014 and April 2015.

The complaints generally allege violations of federal securitieslaws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by thedefendants during the alleged class periods. The complaints seek,among other things, damages and fees and costs. In July 2015, theDistrict Court consolidated the cases and appointed Union AssetManagement Holding AG and KBC Asset Management NV as leadplaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint inAugust 2015. In January 2016, the District Court granted thedefendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaintwith leave to amend.

In February 2016, the District Court issued an order appointingas new lead plaintiffs Bristol Pension Fund; City of Milford,Connecticut Pension & Retirement Board; Pavers and Road BuildersPension, Annuity and Welfare Funds; the Newport News Employees'Retirement Fund; and Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund(collectively, the "Institutional Investor Group").

In March 2016, the Institutional Investor Group filed an amendedcomplaint. In June 2016, the District Court granted thedefendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaintwith leave to amend. In July 2016, the Institutional InvestorGroup filed a further amended complaint. In June 2017, theDistrict Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter.

Western Digital Corporation is a developer, manufacturer andprovider of data storage devices and solutions that address theevolving needs of the information technology ("IT") industry andthe infrastructure that enables the proliferation of data invirtually every industry. The company is based in San Jose,California.

WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Settlement in "Epstein" Case Has Final Okay-------------------------------------------------------------Judge Mary Geiger Lewis entered an Order and Final Judgment datedDecember 18 approving the settlement agreement in the classaction, Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et al., Case No.6:14-cv-01606 (D. S.C.).

The Operating Engineers Construction Industry and MiscellaneousPension Fund serves as lead counsel in the case.

Judge Lewis also approved a plan of allocation as part of thesettlement.

World Acceptance Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Reportfiled with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on April 22,2014, a shareholder filed a putative class action complaint, EdnaSelan Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et al., in theUnited States District Court for the District of South Carolina(case number 6:14-cv-01606) (the "Edna Epstein Putative ClassAction"), against the Company and certain of its current andformer officers on behalf of all persons who purchased orotherwise acquired the Company's common stock between April 25,2013 and March 12, 2014. Two amended complaints have been filedby the plaintiffs, and several other motions have been filed inthe proceedings. The complaint, as currently amended, allegesthat (i) the Company made false and misleading statements invarious SEC reports and other public statements in violation offederal securities laws preceding the Company's disclosure in aForm 8-K filed March 13, 2014 that it had received the CID fromthe CFPB (ii) the Company's loan growth and volume figures wereinflated because of a weakness in the Company's internal controlsrelating to its accounting treatment of certain small-dollar loanre-financings and (iii) additional allegations regarding, amongother things, the Company's receipt of a Notice and Opportunityto Respond and Advise letter from the CFPB on August 7, 2015. Thecomplaint seeks class certification for a class consisting of allpersons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's commonstock between January 30, 2013 and August 10, 2015, unspecifiedmonetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees. The Company deniedthat the claims had any merit and opposed certification of theproposed class.

On June 7, 2017, during a court-ordered mediation, the partiesreached an agreement in principle to settle the Edna EpsteinPutative Class Action. The parties' stipulation setting forth theterms of the settlement was filed with the court on August 25,2017. The court entered an order preliminarily approving thesettlement on August 31, 2017.

The settlement resolves the claims asserted against alldefendants in the action. The settlement stipulation provides fora settlement payment to the class of $16 million, all of whichwill be funded by the Company's directors and officers (D&O)liability insurance carriers. Neither the Company nor any of itspresent or former officers have admitted any wrongdoing orliability in connection with the settlement.

World Acceptance Corporation engages in small-loan consumerfinance business. It serves individuals with limited access toother sources of consumer credit, including banks, credit unions,other consumer finance businesses, and credit card lenders. TheCompany was founded in 1962 and is headquartered in Greenville,South Carolina.

Phillips contends that he contracted mesothelioma because ofoccupational exposure to asbestos in brake linings used in amachine at the facilities of his employer, Champion InternationalPaper Company. Reddaway Manufacturing Company made the brakelinings, and Abex sold them to Champion's supplier.

At trial, Phillips pursued a negligent failure-to-warn theoryunder North Carolina law against Reddaway and Abex. For theirpart, Abex and Reddaway argued (among other things) that even ifthey were negligent, they are not liable because of theintervening negligence of a third party -- i.e., Champion.

The district court submitted Phillips' claims to the jury, withaccompanying instructions, using a special verdict form thatasked the jury to answer a series of questions concerning eachdefendant. The two questions that are most pertinent to thisappeal are Questions 2 and 3, which read:

(2) Was the Plaintiff Erik Ross Phillips injured as aproximate result of any negligence on the part of theDefendant(s) in providing the warnings for the brake liningproduct at issue? If your answer to Issue 2 is Yes with regard toeither or both Defendants, proceed to answer Issue 3. If youranswer to Issue 2 is No for both Defendants, then yourdeliberations have come to an end. . . .

(3) Did any negligence on the part of some third party serveto be a superseding or intervening cause of any injury on thepart of the Plaintiff Erik Ross Phillips? If your answer to Issue3 is Yes, then your deliberations have come to an end. . . .

As to Reddaway, the jury answered "No" on Question 2. Thisanswer, read in conjunction with the jury's answer to Question 1,reflects the jury's finding that although Phillips had frequentand regular exposure to an asbestos-containing brake liningproduct of Reddaway in his workplace, he was not injured as aproximate result of any negligence by Reddaway.

Regarding Abex, the jury answered "Yes" to Questions 2 and 3.These answers reflect the jury's finding that Phillips (who hadfrequent and regular exposure to an asbestos-containing brakelining product of Abex in his workplace) was injured as aproximate result of Abex's negligence in providing the warningsfor the brake lining product, but negligence on the part of athird party was an intervening cause of his injury that became asa legal matter the proximate cause.

Phillips thereafter moved for a new trial against Abex, which thecourt denied. Phillips now appeals the judgment as to Abex,seeking partial entry of judgment in his favor or, alternatively,a new trial. Phillips primarily argues that the jury rendered alegally inconsistent verdict. In his view, the district courterroneously split the concept of intervening negligence (Question3) from the concept of proximate cause (Question 2), and thejury's answers to these questions are irreconcilable. As heexplains: "On the one hand, [the jury] found that Abex'snegligence was a proximate cause of plaintiff's injury. On theother hand, it found that a third party was the sole proximatecause of his injury... The jury can only find that defendant'snegligence proximately caused the injury, or that an interveningcause was the sole cause, but not both."

The Fourth Circuit, disagrees with Phillips' argument, explainingthat when the use of a special verdict form leads to allegedconflicting jury findings, the court have a duty to harmonize thejury's answers -- considering the answers in light of the juryinstructions and view the evidence "in the light most favorableto upholding the jury's decision by a finding of consistency.".The Fourth Circuit finds no inconsistency in the jury's decision.

The North Carolina Supreme Court has held that "in order toinsulate the negligence of one party, the intervening negligenceof another must be such as to break the sequence or causalconnection between the negligence of the first party and theinjury, so as to exclude the negligence of the first party as oneof the proximate causes of the injury. An efficient interveningcause is a new proximate cause. It must be an independent forcewhich entirely supersedes the original action and renders itseffect in the chain of causation remote."

Given the fact that the parties and the district court viewedintervening negligence as an affirmative defense, the court'sdecision to have the jury decide Questions 2 and 3 separately iseminently sensible. The jury instructions and the verdict formrequired the jury to consider first (in Question 2) whetherPhillips had proven his negligence claim against the defendantswithout regard to whether there was any intervening negligence ofa third party. Properly instructed on this point, the jury foundin Phillips' favor. The jury instructions and verdict form thenrequired the jury to consider (in Question 3) the interveningnegligence "defense." Properly instructed on this point, the juryfound in Abex's favor. Thus, in accord with North Carolina law,the jury found that a new proximate cause (third-partynegligence) overtook the original proximate cause (Abex'snegligence), thereby becoming as a legal matter the soleproximate cause of the injury.

Defendant, Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., a division of Aqua-Chem, Inc.,appeals from the trial court's order finding it in "friendlycontempt" and assessing a $1 fine for failing to comply with anorder requiring it to produce copies of certain documents toPlaintiffs, Larry Salvator, Sr. (now deceased) and his wife,Marcia Salvator, in discovery.

In February 2016, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Cleaver-Brooks and 42 other defendants, alleging, in part, LarrySalvator, Sr., sustained injuries caused by the inhalation ofasbestos fibers during his work in close proximity to "asbestos-containing boilers, and associated gaskets and insulation"manufactured by Cleaver-Brooks in the 1960s and 1970s. ThePlaintiffs alleged theories of negligence based on Cleaver-Brooks's failure to (1) warn the exposure to asbestos causedserious disease, pulmonary fibrosis, malignancies, and death and(2) provide instruction as to safe methods, if any existed, ofhandling and processing asbestos-containing products. LarrySalvator, Sr., ultimately identified 11 jobsites where he workedwith equipment manufactured by Cleaver-Brooks. Due to the natureof Larry Salvator, Sr.'s injuries, plaintiffs sought and receivedan expedited discovery and trial schedule.

In November 2016, plaintiffs served Cleaver-Brooks with a secondrequest for production of documents. In part, plaintiffsrequested Cleaver-Brooks to produce "[t]he index cards referencedby [Cleaver-Brooks's corporate representative] at his depositionsthat he says he uses to perform searches for boilers at job sites[sic]."

In December 2016, Cleaver-Brooks filed responses and objectionsto plaintiffs' second request for production of documents.Cleaver-Brooks objects to any request that relates to periods oftime, geographical areas, or activities outside the scope of theallegations of the operative complaint as over broad [sic],irrelevant, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated tolead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Any request that isnot limited in time and scope to the particular facts of thecase, by definition, calls for irrelevant information and is notreasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissibleevidence. It would also impose an unreasonable burden on Cleaver-Brooks to search out, review, organize and produce informationand documents not related to any issue in the case. Further,requiring Cleaver-Brooks to produce information withoutlimitation to the particular facts of the case improperly shiftsplaintiffs' burden of proof to Cleaver-Brooks.

Cleaver-Brooks states that there are over 90,000 index cards andthey are too voluminous to produce. Cleaver-Brooks has agreed tomake the index cards available for plaintiffs' inspection in anorderly fashion at a mutually agreeable date and time." Theparties thereafter agreed plaintiffs would inspect the 90,000index cards on January 10, 2017.

On January 18 and 19, 2017, Cleaver-Brooks allowed plaintiffs toinspect its 90,000 index cards at its facilities. Plaintiffstabbed 5077 index cards to be copied and turned over.

Cleaver-Brooks suggested issues relating to the index cards werelikely to be raised in different ways throughout the course oflitigation. Cleaver-Brooks argued, to protect its due processrights, the issue had to be immediately appealed or plaintiffs'motion to compel should be withdrawn. Cleaver-Brooks assured thecourt its refusal to comply was in good faith because it believedthe remaining index cards were not relevant. Plaintiffs indicatedthey were "not requesting any relief from the court at thattime." Cleaver-Brooks maintained it was within the court'sdiscretion to enter an order of friendly contempt without arequest from plaintiffs' counsel.

Cleaver-Brooks requests the Appellate Court to reverse and vacatethe February 9, 2017, discovery order because the trial courtabused its discretion in ordering it to produce copies of the5077 tabbed index cards. Specifically, Cleaver-Brooks argues thecourt's finding was in error because (1) plaintiffs failed topresent any reasonable argument as to why 5064 of the tabbedindex cards were relevant or likely to lead to relevant evidence,(2) plaintiffs' "true motive" in seeking the index cards was toconduct an improper "fishing expedition" for the benefit of otherplaintiffs within and outside of Illinois; and (3) our courtsprohibit discovery orders based on wide, sweeping discoveryrequests.

Plaintiffs disagree, arguing (1) Cleaver-Brooks's appeal isfrivolous and brought in bad faith, (2) Cleaver-Brooks waived anyrelevance objection by producing the index cards on January 18and 19, 2017, (3) Cleaver-Brooks's boilerplate objections in itsdiscovery responses did not preserve any relevance objection, and(4) the trial court properly concluded copies of 5077 of Cleaver-Brooks's 90,000 index cards were subject to disclosure, as theywere relevant and not requested as part of a "fishingexpedition."

While it appears Cleaver-Brooks intended to preserve its right toreview the tabbed index cards for relevance, the record showsCleaver-Brooks failed to do so. Prior to production, Cleaver-Brooks did not obtain a ruling from the trial court or enter intoan agreement with plaintiffs whereby it could review the indexcards tabbed by plaintiffs for relevance. Instead, Cleaver-Brooksvoluntarily produced the index cards without any reservation. Bydoing so, Cleaver-Brooks forfeited its relevance objection.

Forfeiture aside, the Court finds that Cleaver-Brooks has failedto show the trial court abused its discretion in ordering it toproduce copies of 5077 of its 90,000 index cards on the basisthey were relevant and not requested as part of an improper"fishing" expedition. The Court mentions that the supreme courthas stated: "The objectives of pretrial discovery are to enhancethe truth-seeking process, to enable attorneys to better preparefor trial, to eliminate surprise, and to promote an expeditiousand final determination of controversies in accordance with thesubstantive rights of the parties."

Cleaver-Brooks presented no argument addressing the purposes forwhich plaintiffs asserted the index cards were relevant. Instead,for the first time on appeal, Cleaver-Brooks takes issue withPlaintiffs' alleged purposes for this evidence. By failing topresent argument before the trial court on this issue, Cleaver-Brooks has forfeited the opportunity to do so on appeal. Inreaching its decision, the trial court explicitly found the indexcards were relevant to establish negligence by showing, throughCleaver-Brooks's corporate representative, "the state of the art,what products were sold, what the company's knowledge was at aparticular point in time, [and] if they continued to sell thoseproducts after particular points in time."

The Appellate Court notes that Cleaver-Brooks failed to addressthe court's reasoning other than a conclusory statement in itsinitial brief suggesting the court's reasoning "fails to justifythe sweeping discovery that was ordered." Cleaver-Brooks hasfailed to show the trial court's conclusion was unreasonable.

Cleaver-Brooks also argues plaintiffs' "true motive" in seekingthe index cards was to conduct an improper "fishing expedition"to benefit other plaintiffs within and outside of Illinois.Cleaver-Brooks raised this argument before the trial court. Asadditional support for its position, Cleaver-Brooks now citesplaintiffs' (1) refusal to agree to its inspection agreement, (2)comments at the January 27, 2017, hearing, suggesting they coulduse the index cards in other cases, and (3) refusal to agree to a"confidentiality order" after copies of the tabbed index cardswere ordered to be produced.

Cleaver-Brooks asserts the trial court's discovery order is basedon the type of wide, sweeping discovery requests prohibited bythe courts. The Court finds, however, that the plaintiffsrequested Cleaver-Brooks, who provided its product to 11identified jobsites, to produce copies of 5077 of its 90,000index cards. Thus, the Court concludes that the plaintiffs'discovery request was sufficiently limited and does not amount tothe type of wide, sweeping discovery requests prohibited by thecourts.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Order dated December 5, 2017is available at https://is.gd/c2Bjol from Leagle.com

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Equity LifeStyle, DAs Continue Discussions-----------------------------------------------------------Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc., continues to be involved insettlement discussions with District Attorneys' offices regardingalleged asbestos-related violation on its properties inCalifornia, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "In November 2014, we received a civilinvestigative subpoena from the office of the District Attorneyfor Monterey County, California ("MCDA"), seeking informationrelating to, among other items, statewide compliance withasbestos and hazardous waste regulations dating back to 2005primarily in connection with demolition and renovation projectsperformed by third-party contractors at our CaliforniaProperties. We responded by providing the information requiredby the subpoena.

"On October 20, 2015, we attended a meeting with representativesof the MCDA and certain other District Attorneys' offices atwhich the MCDA reviewed the preliminary results of theirinvestigation including, among other things, (i) allegedviolations of asbestos and related regulations associated withapproximately 200 historical demolition and renovation projectsin California; (ii) potential exposure to civil penalties andunpaid fees; and (iii) next steps with respect to a negotiatedresolution of the alleged violations.

"No legal proceedings have been instituted to date and we areinvolved in settlement discussions with the District Attorneys'offices. We continue to assess the allegations and theunderlying facts, and at this time we are unable to predict theoutcome of the investigation or reasonably estimate any possibleloss."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available athttps://is.gd/qFOCl0

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Had $908MM Claim Reserves at Sept. 30---------------------------------------------------------------The Allstate Corporation had US$908 million reserves for asbestosclaims net of reinsurance recoverable as of September 30, 2017,according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2017.

The Company states, "Allstate's reserves for asbestos claims wereUS$908 million and US$912 million, net of reinsurancerecoverables of US$428 million and US$444 million, as ofSeptember 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. Reservesfor environmental claims were US$175 million and US$179 million,net of reinsurance recoverables of US$35 million and US$40million, as of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016,respectively.

"Management believes its net loss reserves for asbestos,environmental and other discontinued lines exposures areappropriately established based on available facts, technology,laws and regulations. However, establishing net loss reservesfor asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines claimsis subject to uncertainties that are much greater than thosepresented by other types of claims. The ultimate cost of lossesmay vary materially from recorded amounts, which are based onmanagement's best estimate. Among the complications are lack ofhistorical data, long reporting delays, uncertainty as to thenumber and identity of insureds with potential exposure andunresolved legal issues regarding policy coverage; unresolvedlegal issues regarding the determination, availability and timingof exhaustion of policy limits; plaintiffs' evolving andexpanding theories of liability; availability and collectabilityof recoveries from reinsurance; retrospectively determinedpremiums and other contractual agreements; estimates of theextent and timing of any contractual liability; the impact ofbankruptcy protection sought by various asbestos producers andother asbestos defendants; and other uncertainties. There arealso complex legal issues concerning the interpretation ofvarious insurance policy provisions and whether those losses arecovered, or were ever intended to be covered, and could berecoverable through retrospectively determined premium,reinsurance or other contractual agreements.

"Courts have reached different and sometimes inconsistentconclusions as to when losses are deemed to have occurred andwhich policies provide coverage; what types of losses arecovered; whether there is an insurer obligation to defend; howpolicy limits are determined; how policy exclusions andconditions are applied and interpreted; and whether clean-upcosts represent insured property damage. Further, insurers andclaims administrators acting on behalf of insurers areincreasingly pursuing evolving and expanding theories ofreinsurance coverage for asbestos and environmental losses.Adjudication of reinsurance coverage is predominately decided inconfidential arbitration proceedings which may have limitedprecedential or predictive value further complicatingmanagement's ability to estimate probable loss for reinsuredasbestos and environmental claims. Management believes theseissues are not likely to be resolved in the near future, and theultimate costs may vary materially from the amounts currentlyrecorded resulting in material changes in loss reserves.

"In addition, while the Company believes that improved actuarialtechniques and databases have assisted in its ability to estimateasbestos, environmental, and other discontinued lines net lossreserves, these refinements may subsequently prove to beinadequate indicators of the extent of probable losses. Due tothe uncertainties and factors, management believes it is notpracticable to develop a meaningful range for any such additionalnet loss reserves that may be required."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available athttps://is.gd/5BDhBe

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Faces 1,500 Cases at Sept. 30-------------------------------------------------------------Approximately 1,500 cases were outstanding at September 30, 2017,for which Standard Motor Products, Inc., may be responsible forany related liabilities in connection to its former brakebusiness, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "In 1986, we acquired a brake business, whichwe subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for asa discontinued operation. When we originally acquired this brakebusiness, we assumed future liabilities relating to any allegedexposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by theseller of the acquired brake business. In accordance with therelated purchase agreement, we agreed to assume the liabilitiesfor all new claims filed on or after September 2001. Ourultimate exposure will depend upon the number of claims filedagainst us on or after September 2001 and the amounts paid forindemnity and defense thereof. At September 30, 2017,approximately 1,500 cases were outstanding for which we may beresponsible for any related liabilities. Since inception inSeptember 2001 through September 30, 2017, the amounts paid forsettled claims are approximately US$23.5 million.

"In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we haveconsidered various factors including, among other things, anactuarial study of the asbestos related liabilities performed byan independent actuarial firm, our settlement amounts and whetherthere are any co-defendants, the jurisdiction in which lawsuitsare filed, and the status and results of settlement discussions.As is our accounting policy, we consider the advice of actuarialconsultants with experience in assessing asbestos-relatedliabilities to estimate our potential claim liability. Themethodology used to project asbestos-related liabilities andcosts in our actuarial study considered: (1) historical dataavailable from publicly available studies; (2) an analysis of ourrecent claims history to estimate likely filing rates into thefuture; (3) an analysis of our currently pending claims; and (4)an analysis of our settlements to date in order to developaverage settlement values."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available athttps://is.gd/ns4cd9

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Liability Upped to $35.2MM----------------------------------------------------------Standard Motor Products, Inc., increased its asbestos liabilityto$35.2 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "We are responsible for certain futureliabilities relating to alleged exposure to asbestos-containingproducts. In accordance with our accounting policy, our mostrecent actuarial study as of August 31, 2017 estimated anundiscounted liability for settlement payments, excluding legalcosts and any potential recovery from insurance carriers, rangingfrom US$35.2 million to US$54 million for the period through2060. Based on the information contained in the actuarial studyand all other available information considered by us, we haveconcluded that no amount within the range of settlement paymentswas more likely than any other and, therefore, in assessing ourasbestos liability we compare the low end of the range to ourrecorded liability to determine if an adjustment is required.

"Based upon the results of the August 31, 2017 actuarial study,in September 2017 we increased our asbestos liability to US$35.2million, the low end of the range, and recorded an incrementalpre-tax provision of US$6 million in earnings (loss) fromdiscontinued operations in the accompanying statement ofoperations. In addition, according to the updated study, futurelegal costs, which are expensed as incurred and reported inearnings (loss) from discontinued operations in the accompanyingstatement of operations, are estimated to range from US$44.3million to US$79.6 million for the period through 2060.

"We will continue to perform an annual actuarial analysis duringthe third quarter of each year for the foreseeable future. Basedon this analysis and all other available information, we willcontinue to reassess the recorded liability and, if deemednecessary, record an adjustment to the reserve, which will bereflected as a loss or gain from discontinued operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available athttps://is.gd/ns4cd9

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Energy Still Assessing Liability at Sept. 30-----------------------------------------------------------------NRG Energy, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2017, that it is analyzing the scope of potentialliability related to its subsidiary, Midwest Generation, LLC.

NRG Energy states, "The Company, through its subsidiary, MidwestGeneration, may be subject to potential asbestos liabilities as aresult of its acquisition of EME. The Company is currentlyanalyzing the scope of potential liability as it may relate toMidwest Generation. The Company believes that it has establishedan adequate reserve for these cases."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available athttps://is.gd/y32SNC

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Still Has Less Than 500 Cases at Sept 30-----------------------------------------------------------------Tenneco Inc. is still facing not more than 500 active andinactive cases by claimants alleging health problems as a resultof exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "For many years we have been and continue tobe subject to lawsuits initiated by claimants alleging healthproblems as a result of exposure to asbestos. Our current docketof active and inactive cases is less than 500 cases nationwide.A small number of claims have been asserted against one of oursubsidiaries by railroad workers alleging exposure to asbestosproducts in railroad cars. The substantial majority of theremaining claims are related to alleged exposure to asbestos inour automotive products although a significant number of thoseclaims appear also to involve occupational exposures sustained inindustries other than automotive.

"We believe, based on scientific and other evidence, it isunlikely that claimants were exposed to asbestos by our formerproducts and that, in any event, they would not be at increasedrisk of asbestos-related disease based on their work with theseproducts. Further, many of these cases involve numerousdefendants, with the number in some cases exceeding 100defendants from a variety of industries. Additionally, in manycases the plaintiffs either do not specify any, or specify thejurisdictional minimum, dollar amount for damages.

"As major asbestos manufacturers and/or users continue to go outof business or file for bankruptcy, we may experience anincreased number of these claims. We vigorously defend ourselvesagainst these claims as part of our ordinary course of business.

"In future periods, we could be subject to cash costs or chargesto earnings if any of these matters are resolved unfavorably tous. To date, with respect to claims that have proceededsufficiently through the judicial process, we have regularlyachieved favorable resolutions. Accordingly, we presentlybelieve that these asbestos-related claims will not have amaterial adverse impact on our future consolidated financialposition, results of operations or liquidity."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available athttps://is.gd/42kqos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Still Faces Asbestos Suits at Sept. 30--------------------------------------------------------------AMETEK, Inc., still defends itself against a number of asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

AMETEK states, "The Company (including its subsidiaries) has beennamed as a defendant in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits.Certain of these lawsuits relate to a business which was acquiredby the Company and do not involve products which weremanufactured or sold by the Company. In connection with theselawsuits, the seller of such business has agreed to indemnify theCompany against these claims (the "Indemnified Claims").

"The Indemnified Claims have been tendered to, and are beingdefended by, such seller. The seller has met its obligations, inall respects, and the Company does not have any reason to believesuch party would fail to fulfill its obligations in the future.

"No judgments have been rendered against the Company as a resultof any asbestos-related lawsuit. The Company believes that ithas good and valid defenses to each of these claims and intendsto defend them vigorously."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available athttps://is.gd/mWhA9t

ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Had $25.1MM Libby Costs at Sept. 30-------------------------------------------------------------W. R. Grace & Co. had total estimated liability of US$25.1million at September 30, 2017, for response costs related to avermiculite mine and surrounding area in Libby, Montana, as wellas at vermiculite processing sites outside of Libby, according tothe Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,2017.

The Company states, "Grace purchased a vermiculite mine in Libby,Montana, in 1963 and operated it until 1990. Vermiculiteconcentrate from the Libby mine was used in the manufacture ofattic insulation and other products. Some of the vermiculite orecontained naturally occurring asbestos.

"Grace is engaged with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(the "EPA") and other federal, state and local governmentalagencies in a remedial investigation and feasibility study("RI/FS") of the Libby mine and the surrounding area. In its2017 Annual Project Update for the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site,the EPA announced a narrowing of its focus from the former "OU3Study Area" to a smaller Operable Unit 3 or "OU3." Within thisrevised area, the RI/FS will determine the specific areasrequiring remediation and will identify possible remedial actionalternatives. Possible remedial actions within OU3 are wide-ranging, from institutional controls such as land userestrictions, to more active measures involving soil removal,containment projects, or other protective measures. Graceexpects the RI/FS and a record of decision to be completed by theend of 2019. When meaningful new information becomes available,Grace will reevaluate estimated liability for the costs forremediation of the mine and surrounding area and adjust itsreserves accordingly.

"The EPA is also investigating or remediating formerly owned oroperated sites that processed Libby vermiculite into finishedproducts. Grace is cooperating with the EPA on theseinvestigation and remediation activities, and has recorded aliability to the extent that its review has indicated that aprobable liability has been incurred and the cost is estimable.These liabilities cover the estimated cost of investigations and,to the extent an assessment has indicated that remediation isnecessary, the estimable cost of response actions. Responseactions typically involve soil excavation and removal, andreplacement with clean fill. The EPA may commence additionalinvestigations in the future at other sites that processed Libbyvermiculite, but Grace does not believe, based on its knowledgeof prior and current operations and site conditions, thatliability for remediation at such other sites is probable.

"Grace accrued US$0.5 million in the three months ended September30, 2017, for future costs related to vermiculite-relatedmatters, which reflects provision for an agreed-upon remedy at aformer vermiculite processing site. Grace's total estimatedliability for response costs that are currently estimable for theLibby mine and surrounding area, and at vermiculite processingsites outside of Libby at September 30, 2017, and December 31,2016, was US$25.1 million and US$31.2 million, respectively. Itis probable that Grace's ultimate liability for thesevermiculite-related matters will exceed current estimates bymaterial amounts."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available athttps://is.gd/fOm7uL

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Consolidated Edison Accrues US$8MM Liability-------------------------------------------------------------Consolidated Edison, Inc., had accrued liability of US$8 millionfor asbestos suits at September 30, 2017, according to theCompany's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.The Company also deferred US$8 million as regulatory assetsrelated to asbestos suits at September 30, 2017.

On the other hand, subsidiary Consolidated Edison Company of NewYork, Inc. (CECONY) had accrued liability of US$7 million forasbestos suits and deferred US$7 million as asbestos-relatedregulatory assets at September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "Suits have been brought in New York Stateand federal courts against the Utilities and many otherdefendants, wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought largeamounts of compensatory and punitive damages for deaths andinjuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at variouspremises of the Utilities. The suits that have been resolved,which are many, have been resolved without any payment by theUtilities, or for amounts that were not, in the aggregate,material to them. The amounts specified in all the remainingthousands of suits total billions of dollars; however, theUtilities believe that these amounts are greatly exaggerated,based on the disposition of previous claims.

"At September 30, 2017, Con Edison and CECONY have accrued theirestimated aggregate undiscounted potential liabilities for thesesuits and additional suits that may be brought over the next 15years. These estimates were based upon a combination ofmodeling, historical data analysis and risk factor assessment.Courts have begun, and unless otherwise determined on appeal maycontinue, to apply different standards for determining liabilityin asbestos suits than the standard that applied historically.As a result, the Companies currently believe that there is areasonable possibility of an exposure to loss in excess of theliability accrued for the suits. The Companies are unable toestimate the amount or range of such loss.

"In addition, certain current and former employees have claimedor are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on allegeddisability from exposure to asbestos. CECONY is permitted todefer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery throughrates) costs incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers'compensation claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available athttps://is.gd/OGDzFc

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Unit Had US$80.0MM Reserves at Sept. 30---------------------------------------------------------------Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC,had reserved US$80 million at September 30, 2017, for asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "At September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016,Generation had reserved approximately US$80 million and US$83million, respectively, in total for asbestos-related bodilyinjury claims. As of September 30, 2017, approximately US$22million of this amount related to 227 open claims presented toGeneration, while the remaining US$58 million of the reserve isfor estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claimsanticipated to arise through 2050, based on actuarial assumptionsand analyses, which are updated on an annual basis. On aquarterly basis, Generation monitors actual experience againstthe number of forecasted claims to be received and expected claimpayments and evaluates whether an adjustment to the reserve isnecessary."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available athttps://is.gd/CY7KqS

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Expects Additional Exposure at Sept. 30---------------------------------------------------------------Exelon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2017, that there is a reasonable possibility thatit may have additional exposure to estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims in excess of the amount accrued andthe increases could have a material adverse effect on futureresults of operations and cash flows of the Company and itssubsidiaries Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Commonwealth EdisonCompany, PECO Energy Company and Baltimore Gas and ElectricCompany.

The Company states, "On November 22, 2013, the Supreme Court ofPennsylvania held that the Pennsylvania Workers Compensation Actdoes not apply to an employee's disability or death resultingfrom occupational disease, such as diseases related to asbestosexposure, which manifests more than 300 weeks after theemployee's last employment-based exposure, and that therefore theexclusivity provision of the Act does not preclude such employeefrom suing his or her employer in court. The Supreme Court'sruling reverses previous rulings by the Pennsylvania SuperiorCourt precluding current and former employees from suing theiremployers in court, despite the fact that the same employee wasnot eligible for workers compensation benefits for diseases thatmanifest more than 300 weeks after the employee's lastemployment-based exposure to asbestos. Since the PennsylvaniaSupreme Court's ruling in November 2013, Exelon, Generation, andPECO have experienced an increase in asbestos-related personalinjury claims brought by former PECO employees, all of which havebeen reserved for on a claim by claim basis. Those additionalclaims are taken into account in projecting estimates of futureasbestos-related bodily injury claims.

"On November 4, 2015, the Illinois Supreme Court found that theprovisions of the Illinois' Workers' Compensation Act and theWorkers' Occupational Diseases Act barred an employee frombringing a direct civil action against an employer for latentdiseases, including asbestos-related diseases that fall outsidethe 25-year limit of the statute of repose. The Illinois SupremeCourt's ruling reversed previous rulings by the Illinois Court ofAppeals, which initially ruled that the Illinois Worker'sCompensation law should not apply in cases where the diagnosis ofan asbestos related disease occurred after the 25-year maximumtime period for filing a Worker's Compensation claim. Since theIllinois Supreme Court's ruling in November 2015, Exelon,Generation, and ComEd have not experienced a significant increasein asbestos-related personal injury claims brought by formerComEd employees.

"There is a reasonable possibility that Exelon may haveadditional exposure to estimated future asbestos-related bodilyinjury claims in excess of the amount accrued and the increasescould have a material adverse effect on Exelon's, Generation's,ComEd's, PECO and BGE's future results of operations and cashflows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available athttps://is.gd/CY7KqS

ASBESTOS UPDATE: BGE Still Defends Asbestos Claims at Sept. 30--------------------------------------------------------------Exelon Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2017, that its subsidiary, Baltimore Gas andElectric Company, still faces asbestos-related claims.

The Company states, "Since 1993, BGE and certain Constellation(now Generation) subsidiaries have been involved in severalactions concerning asbestos. The actions are based upon thetheory of "premises liability," alleging that BGE and Generationknew of and exposed individuals to an asbestos hazard. Inaddition to BGE and Generation, numerous other parties aredefendants in these cases.

"Most asbestos claims which have been resolved relating to BGEand certain Constellation subsidiaries have been dismissed orresolved without any payment and a small minority of these caseshas been resolved for amounts that were not material to BGE orGeneration's financial results. Presently, there are animmaterial number of asbestos cases pending against BGE andcertain Constellation subsidiaries."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available athttps://is.gd/CY7KqS

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Has $44.4MM Asbestos Coverage at Sept. 30----------------------------------------------------------------Enpro Industries, Inc., had US$44.4 million of insurance coverageto cover asbestos claims payments and certain expense payments atSeptember 30, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filingwith the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "The historical business operations ofGarlock Sealing Technologies LLC ("GST LLC") and The AnchorPacking Company ("Anchor") resulted in a substantial volume ofasbestos litigation in which plaintiffs alleged personal injuryor death as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers. Thosesubsidiaries manufactured and/or sold industrial sealingproducts, predominately gaskets and packing, that containedencapsulated asbestos fibers. Anchor was an inactive andinsolvent indirect subsidiary of EnPro's then-direct subsidiary,Coltec Industries Inc ("Coltec"). Our subsidiaries' exposure toasbestos litigation and their relationships with insurancecarriers had been managed through another subsidiary, GarrisonLitigation Management Group, Ltd. ("Garrison"). GST LLC, Anchorand Garrison are collectively referred to as "GST."

"On June 5, 2010 (the "GST Petition Date"), GST LLC, Anchor andGarrison filed voluntary petitions for reorganization underChapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the "GST Chapter11 Case") in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western Districtof North Carolina (the "Bankruptcy Court"). The filings were theinitial step in a claims resolution process for an efficient andpermanent resolution of all pending and future asbestos claimsthrough court approval of a plan of reorganization to establish afacility to resolve and pay all GST asbestos claims. On March17, 2016, we announced that we had reached a comprehensiveconsensual settlement to resolve current and future asbestosclaims which contemplated the joint plan of reorganization (the"Joint Plan") which was filed with the Bankruptcy Court. Thissettlement contemplated that Coltec would, subject to the receiptof necessary consents, undergo a corporate restructuring (the"Coltec Restructuring") in which all of its significant operatingassets and subsidiaries, which included each of the Company'smajor business units, would be distributed to a new directsubsidiary of the Company, which would also assume all ofColtec's non-asbestos liabilities. The Coltec Restructuring wascompleted on December 31, 2016, and included the merger of Coltecwith and into OldCo, LLC ("OldCo"), an indirect subsidiary ofEnPro. As further contemplated by the settlement, on January 30,2017 (the "OldCo Petition Date"), OldCo filed a Chapter 11bankruptcy petition with the Bankruptcy Court (the "OldCo Chapter11 Case"). On February 3, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court issued anorder for the joint administration of the OldCo Chapter 11 Casewith the GST Chapter 11 Case. The Joint Plan was consummated onJuly 31, 2017.

"During the pendency of the GST Chapter 11 Case and the relatedOldCo Chapter 11 Case, certain actions proposed to be taken byGST or OldCo not in the ordinary course of business were subjectto approval by the Bankruptcy Court. As a result, during thependency of the GST Chapter 11 Case and the OldCo Chapter 11Case, we did not have exclusive control over these companies.Accordingly, as required by GAAP, GST was deconsolidatedbeginning on the GST Petition Date and OldCo was deconsolidatedbeginning on the OldCo Petition Date.

"As a result of the initiation of the GST Chapter 11 Case and theOldCo Chapter 11 Case, the resolution of asbestos claims againstthese companies was subject to the jurisdiction of the BankruptcyCourt. The filing of the GST Chapter 11 Case automaticallystayed the prosecution of pending asbestos bodily injury andwrongful death lawsuits, and initiation of new such lawsuits,against GST. Further, the Bankruptcy Court issued an orderenjoining plaintiffs from bringing or further prosecutingasbestos products liability actions against affiliates of GST,including EnPro, Coltec and all their subsidiaries, during thependency of the GST Chapter 11 Case, subject to further order.As a result, except as a result of the resolution of appeals fromverdicts rendered prior to the GST Petition Date and theelimination of claims as a result of information obtained in theGST Chapter 11 Case, the numbers of asbestos claims pendingagainst our subsidiaries had not changed since the GST PetitionDate.

"At September 30, 2017, we had US$44.4 million of insurancecoverage we believe is available to cover GST asbestos claimspayments and certain expense payments, including contributions tothe Trust. GST has collected insurance payments totalingUS$152.3 million since the GST Petition Date. We consider theUS$44.4 million of available insurance coverage remaining to beof high quality because the insurance policies are written orguaranteed by U.S.-based carriers whose credit rating by S&P isinvestment grade (BBB-) or better, and whose AM Best rating isexcellent (A-) or better. Of the US$44.4 million, US$8.3 millionis allocated to claims that were paid by GST LLC prior to theinitiation of the Chapter 11 Case and submitted to insurancecompanies for reimbursement, and the remainder is allocated topending and estimated future claims. There are specificagreements in place with carriers covering US$29.4 million of theremaining available coverage. Based on those agreements and theterms of the policies in place and prior decisions concerningcoverage, we believe that all of the US$44.4 million of insuranceproceeds will ultimately be collected, although there can be noassurance that the insurance companies will make the payments asand when due. Based on those agreements and policies, some ofwhich define specific annual amounts to be paid and others ofwhich limit the amount that can be recovered in any one year, weanticipate that US$19.2 million will be received either throughsettlements or in reimbursements of GST's plan funding aspayments are made by the asbestos trust.

"GST LLC has received US$8.8 million of insurance recoveries frominsolvent carriers since 2007, and may receive additionalpayments from insolvent carriers in the future. No anticipatedinsolvent carrier collections are included in the US$44.4 millionof anticipated collections. The insurance available to covercurrent and future asbestos claims is from comprehensive generalliability policies that cover OldCo, as the successor to Coltec,and certain of its other subsidiaries in addition to GST LLC forperiods prior to 1985 and therefore could be subject to potentialcompeting claims of other covered subsidiaries and theirassignees."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available athttps://is.gd/z2dVs9

ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Auto Parts Units Still Defend Suits at Sept30-----------------------------------------------------------------U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to faceseveral lawsuits involving claims for damages caused byinstallation of brakes that contained asbestos, according to theCompany's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company,Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary Whitney Automotive Group, Inc. ("WAG"), arenamed defendants in several lawsuits involving claims for damagescaused by installation of brakes during the late 1960's and early1970's that contained asbestos. WAG marketed certain brakes, butdid not manufacture any brakes. WAG maintains liabilityinsurance coverage to protect its and the Company's assets fromlosses arising from the litigation and coverage is provided on anoccurrence rather than a claims made basis, and the Company isnot expected to incur significant out-of-pocket costs inconnection with this matter that would be material to itsconsolidated financial statements."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available athttps://is.gd/Oe7gxz

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Energy Fuels Still Faces Claims at Sept. 30------------------------------------------------------------Energy Fuels Inc. continues to face claims over an allegedasbestos exposure resulting from the operation of the White MesaMill, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2017.

The Company states, "In November 2012, the Company was servedwith a Plaintiff's Original Petition and Jury Demand in theDistrict Court of Harris County, Texas, claiming unspecifieddamages from the disease and injuries resulting from mesotheliomafrom exposure to asbestos, which the Plaintiff claims wascontributed to by being exposed to asbestos products and dustwhile working at the White Mesa Mill.

"The Company does not consider this claim to have any merit, andtherefore does not believe it will materially affect ourfinancial position, results of operations or cash flows. InJanuary, 2013, the Company filed a Special Appearance challengingjurisdiction and certain other procedural matters relating tothis claim. No other activity involving the Company on thismatter has occurred since that date."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available athttps://is.gd/n9WM6m

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Units Had 27,000 Claims Pending at Sept. 30----------------------------------------------------------------ITT Inc.'s subsidiaries had 27,000 pending claims at September30, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly periodended September 30, 2017.

The Company states, "Subsidiaries of ITT, including ITT LLC andGoulds Pumps LLC, have been sued, along with many other companiesin product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due toasbestos exposure. These claims generally allege that certainproducts sold by our subsidiaries prior to 1985 contained a partmanufactured by a third party (e.g., a gasket) which containedasbestos. To the extent these third-party parts may havecontained asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or other)material and was non-friable. As of September 30, 2017, therewere approximately 27 thousand pending claims against ITTsubsidiaries, including Goulds Pumps LLC, filed in various stateand federal courts alleging injury as a result of exposure toasbestos.

"Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT LLC orGoulds Pumps LLC products as a source of asbestos exposure. Ourexperience to date is that a majority of resolved claims aredismissed without any payment from ITT subsidiaries. Managementbelieves that a large majority of the pending claims have littleor no value. In addition, because claims are sometimes dismissedin large groups, the average cost per resolved claim canfluctuate significantly from period to period. ITT expects moreasbestos-related suits will be filed in the future, and ITT willcontinue to aggressively defend or seek a reasonable resolution,as appropriate.

"Asbestos litigation is a unique form of litigation. Frequently,the plaintiff sues a large number of defendants and does notstate a specific claim amount. After filing a complaint, theplaintiff engages defendants in settlement negotiations toestablish a settlement value based on certain criteria, includingthe number of defendants in the case. Rarely do the plaintiffsseek to collect all damages from one defendant. Rather, theyseek to spread the liability, and thus the payments, among manydefendants. As a result of this and other factors, the Companyis unable to estimate the maximum potential exposure to pendingclaims and claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available athttps://is.gd/I0THzo

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Has US$875.5MM Liability at Sept. 30--------------------------------------------------------------ITT Inc. had recorded an undiscounted asbestos-related liabilityof US$875.5 million as of September 30, 2017, for pending claimsand unasserted claims estimated to be filed over the next 10years, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2017.

The Company states, "We record a liability for pending asbestosclaims and asbestos claims estimated to be filed over the next 10years. While it is probable that we will incur additional costsfor future claims to be filed against the Company, a liabilityfor potential future claims beyond the next 10 years is notreasonably estimable due to the variables and uncertaintiesinherent in the long-term projection of the Company's asbestosexposures and potential recoveries. As of September 30, 2017, wehave recorded an undiscounted asbestos-related liability forpending claims and unasserted claims estimated to be filed overthe next 10 years of US$875.5 million, including expected legalfees, and an associated asset of US$374.3 which representsestimated recoveries from insurers, resulting in a net asbestosexposure of US$501.2 million."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available athttps://is.gd/I0THzo

ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBP3.8MM for North East Asbestos Victims---------------------------------------------------------Mike Kelley of Chronicle News reported that asbestos victims andtheir families in this region have shared in GBP3.8 millioncompensation pay outs over the last 17 months thanks to the helpof campaigners.

The cash was secured by the Northern TUC Asbestos Support andCampaign Group (ASCG) between April 2016 and September 2017 forclaimants in the North East and North Cumbria.

The group, launched in 2010, is a partnership between NorthernTUC, Macmillan Cancer Support, trade unions and West View Adviceand Resource Centre, provides support, advice and information topeople living with the effects of asbestos exposure, theirfamilies and carers.

People helped by the group have asbestos-related diseases such asmesothelioma, asbestosis and lung cancer as well as otherworkplace cancers.

"We are also looking to develop this area of work further andwiden the scope of the group to help even more people -- takingthe service directly into workplaces, briefing and training unionreps."

Asbestos is the biggest cause of workplace deaths. Last year5,000 people were likely to die prematurely as a result ofasbestos exposure, around three times the number of road accidentdeaths.

Most of those who die do so as a result of mesothelioma, a kindof cancer that can be caused by very low levels of exposure whichis always fatal.

Almost all of the people who are dying today were exposed toasbestos decades ago, so asbestos is now often seen as being aproblem of the past as its importation and use have been bannedsince 1999.

That is not the case. The dangers of asbestos are still with us.Asbestos-containing materials can be found in around half amillion non-domestic premises, and probably around a milliondomestic ones.

Ms Farhat said: "Unfortunately, the legacy of asbestos is goingto be with us for some time to come so it is imperative thatthere is free access to good quality, easily accessible supportand guidance for those who need it."

"We know that through working together with our partners we willensure this valuable service continues helping people sufferingfrom industrial cancers right across the north east."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Materials Removed in Minister's Home--------------------------------------------------------------Solomone Rabulu and Mere Naleba of Fiji Times Online reportedthat a team from the Ministry of Labour is removing materialsthat contain asbestos at the State House.

This was confirmed by the Minister for Labour, Jone Usamate.

Mr Usamate said materials containing asbestos from the oldNausori Market had also been successfully removed under greatsupervision and the focus now was on clearing asbestos from theState House which the President, Jioji Konrote, occupies.

"I understand that the asbestos have been removed under greatsupervision from the Nausori Market," said Mr Usamate.

"We had the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Unit that hadthe requirements in place. We also had the Nausori Town Councilto gather consultants and help the team remove the asbestos fromthe place."

Asbestos are bundles of fibre that are used by constructioncompanies to strengthen cement and plastics as well as forinsulation, roofing, fireproofing, and sound absorption.

However, asbestos have been classified as a cancer-causingsubstance that has been banned in several countries around theworld.

Studies have shown that people exposed to asbestos may have anincreased risk of developing lung cancer and a cancer of the thinmembrane that lines the chest and the abdomen known asmesothelioma.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fiji Lacks Asbestos Awareness----------------------------------------------Alisi Vucago of The Tiji Times Online reported that there is notenough awareness in Fiji and the region on the healthimplications of asbestos exposure, says Ken Takahashi, thedirector and Professor for Asbestos Disease Research Institute atthe University of Sydney.

In an interview with Fiji Times Online today, Mr Takahashi saidthe fact that an asbestos symposium hosted in Pacific Harbourtoday was the first of its kind, speaks of the fact that thecountry and the region needed to start organising similar kindsof effort, including general awareness raising, training ofworkers and education of children.

He said first, there was a need to know how much of asbestos wascoming into Fiji and in what way.

"Now we do know that some very well-known buildings in Fiji haveused asbestos as construction materials and I think we shouldconsider that as a tip of the iceberg. It is very likely thatasbestos has been used in other public buildings as well asresidential buildings and unless proven otherwise, we shouldsuspect that," Mr Takahashi said.

"I also emphasised in my talk that it's not only in constructionmaterials, asbestos can be used in wide range of industrialapplications because they are heat resistant, good frictionmaterials so the country has to first look into these sources ofasbestos used in the country and take it from there.

"Once you identify the sources, you'll know how to deal withthem. Of course you have to think about detecting the disease,but I think that is secondary to finding the sources.

"Once you know the sources, you will know the people who might beexposed and then you are able to target a certain section of thepopulation who may be at risk of developing the disease and fromthat, you may be able to find asbestos-related diseases."

Mr Takahashi said since the exposure of the asbestos situationwas not well recognised in the region, he realised that medicalexpertise was non-existent.

"But I can tell you that even in developed countries likeAustralia and Japan, there are misdiagnosis as many cases aremistaken for other diseases or they may even not be detected atall. So it takes a long time for countries to acquire theexpertise," he said.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Endanger Children Playing Xmas Decors---------------------------------------------------------------Tim Povtak of Asbestos.com reported that the organizationrepresenting education worker unions in the United Kingdom hascautioned its members to avoid disturbing asbestos andendangering children when displaying Christmas decorations inschool classrooms.

The Joint Union Asbestos Committee (JUAC) through the Departmentof Education issued a directive to staffs throughout the U.K.,reminding them nearly 90 percent of schools still contain sometoxic asbestos products.

JUAC said putting staples and pins into walls or ceilings to helpdisplay holiday decorations often releases microscopic asbestosfibers that can cause serious health issues for those nearby.

"This activity should not be taking place in schools whereasbestos is known to be present," the Department of Educationinsisted.

JUAC advised school staffs to:

* Determine whether your building contains asbestos andexactly where it is located.

* Not pierce the walls and ceilings of classrooms, corridorsor halls with staples or pins to hang Christmas decorations ifasbestos is suspected.

"Any school built before 2000 is likely to contain asbestos," theJUAC directive said. "Nearly 90 percent of schools still containasbestos and children are known to be most vulnerable because ofthe long latency of asbestos-related diseases such asmesothelioma."

Even with Asbestos Ban, the Problem Remains

The U.K. is among 61 countries that have banned the toxicmineral, but still has one of the world's highest incidence ratesof asbestos-related disease, stemming from ubiquitous use fordecades that remains a threat today.

Asbestos was used in U.K. school construction in various formsuntil 1999, when the full ban took effect. It was utilized tobetter fireproof the construction, primarily in ceiling and floortiles, along with certain drywall products.

The Health and Safety Executive, the U.K.'s governmental agencythat oversees school remodeling projects that may includeasbestos, said "as long as asbestos is in good condition, well-managed and unlikely to be damaged or disturbed, it is not asignificant risk to the health of teachers and pupils."

Asbestos becomes dangerous when it ages or is disturbed, sendingmicroscopic fibers into the air. When they are inhaled oringested, the fibers eventually could lead to serious problemssuch as asbestosis, lung cancer or mesothelioma.

Teachers and Students Getting Exposed

More than 250 former staff and students in the U.K. the past sixyears have filed claims with the Department of Education, citingasbestos-related diseases traced to various schools.

Asbestos also has been a problem in older schools throughout theUnited States.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimatesasbestos-containing materials are in many of the approximately132,000 secondary and primary schools across the country.

The EPA also insists those materials pose very little risk ifthey remain in good condition and undisturbed. Problems havearisen, though, when an improper abatement is attempted ormaintenance work is done without the necessary precautions.

The EPA estimates almost half of all schools today were builtbetween 1950 and 1969, a time when asbestos use was at its peak.It is especially prevalent in schools throughout New England.The EPA recently awarded $631,000 in grants to five New Englandstates to help manage their asbestos-in-schools problem.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that at varioustimes during plaintiff Ellis Blamble's work from 1957 to 2000 atFord Foundry, he was exposed to asbestos fibers emanating fromcertain products manufactured, sold, distributed or installed bydefendants. They also allege that he was secondarily exposed toasbestos through his father, a farmer.

The suit states that on Oct. 10, Ellis was diagnosed with lungcancer, an asbestos-induced disease, and that the disease waswrongfully caused.

The plaintiffs holds Agco Corp., Beazer East Inc., Cleaver-Brooks., et al. responsible because the defendants allegedlyfailed to provide adequate warnings and instructions concerningthe dangers of working with or around products containingasbestos fibers.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek damages of morethan $50,000. They are represented by Randy L. Gori of Gori,Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Neyland Couple Sue for Asbestos-Related Injuries-----------------------------------------------------------------Lhale Castillo of Madison-St. Claire Record reported that acouple is seeking more than $50,000 in damages from multiplecompanies over allegations of injuries sustained by asbestosexposure.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that at varioustimes during Andre Neyland's career from 1974 to 2016, he wasexposed to and inhaled or ingested large amounts of asbestosfibers emanating from certain products manufactured, sold,distributed or installed by defendants.

The suit states that on or about June 14, 2016, he first becameaware that he developed lung cancer, an asbestos-induced disease,and that the disease was wrongfully caused.

The plaintiffs holds Alfa Laval Inc., Ameron International Corp.,Borg-Borg-Warner Morse TEC LLC, et al. responsible because thedefendants allegedly negligently included asbestos fibers intheir products when adequate substitutes were available andfailed to provide adequate warnings and instructions concerningthe dangers of working with or around products containingasbestos fibers.

The plaintiffs seek damages of more than $50,000. They arerepresented by Randy L. Gori of Gori, Julian & Associates PC inEdwardsville.

In the Dec. 13 opinion, the U.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Ohio found there was enough evidence for a jury todetermine whether the Bendix brakes were a substantial factor inher development of the asbestos-related disease.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Letter Suspected to Contain Asbestos Sent to DHB-----------------------------------------------------------------Mike Houlahan of Otago Daily Times reported that a poison penletter with a difference has been sent to the Southern DistrictHealth Board, a sample of material possibly containing asbestos.The unwanted delivery has prompted a warning from healthofficials for people not to handle hazardous materialsthemselves, but to call in a health protection officer first.

That precaution was not taken by the correspondent, who insteadopted to send the potentially deadly material by mail to the DHBfor testing.

"We appreciate that people are trying to do the right thing bygetting asbestos tested," DHB medical officer of health MarionPoore said.

"But we need to take precautions to protect the health and safetyof our staff and community."

WorkSafe New Zealand was notified of the incident, but aspokesman said the incident did not meet its criteria for furtherinvestigation.

Asbestos was a commonly used building material but is now knownto cause a wide range of serious health issues, including deadlyillnesses.

Unsuspecting homeowners run the risk of exposure to asbestos whendisturbing or removing building materials.

"It is important to seek advice from a health protection officerprior to collecting samples to help ensure any samples arecollected and submitted safely," Dr Poore said.

The Southern DHB website page on asbestos now has a warning inbold type not to send asbestos samples in the post.

Health protection officers are available to provide advice inOtago and Southland.

Professionals such as builders, roofers and flooring companiesare expected to remove samples in accordance with Worksafeguidelines and submit them to a lab for testing.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Study Points Accurate Mesothelioma Testing-----------------------------------------------------------Mesothelioma.net reported that one of the most challengingaspects of treating malignant pleural mesothelioma is the factthat the condition is generally so far advanced by the time it isdiagnosed. The condition does not begin to manifest symptomsuntil decades after exposure to asbestos has taken place, and bythat time the cancerous tumors have often taken hold deep withinthe chest cavity and infiltrated vital organs. But now acollaborative study conducted by the University of Amsterdam andseveral Belgian universities has shown successful preliminaryresults from the use of breath analysis tests in screening formalignant mesothelioma. If the tools is developed further, itcould be used on those with a known exposure to asbestos in orderto help identify illness much earlier, providing extendedsurvival times.

The technology that is being tested for use in detecting earlystage malignant pleural mesothelioma uses a technology that isbroadly known as breathomics. Breathomics uses gaschromatography-mass spectrometry technology, as well astechnology known as "e-Nose". In the test conducted in Europe, 64study participants were selected, with 16 healthy individualschosen as controls, 19 people with a known history of exposure toasbestos but in whom no symptoms had yet presented, 15 peopleidentified as being ill with asbestos-related diseases other thanmesothelioma, and 14 who had already been confirmed as havingmalignant pleural mesothelioma. Each provided breath samples foranalysis of compounds found within their exhaled breath.

The results were remarkable: the technology was able todistinguish between mesothelioma and other asbestos-relatedillnesses in those who were already sick, as well as providingaccurate predictions on who was likely to develop mesothelioma ata later date and who was not. The scientists involved in theresearch concluded, "This study shows accurate discrimination ofpatients with malignant pleural mesothelioma from asymptomaticasbestos-exposed persons at risk by GC-MS and eNose analysis ofexhaled volatile organic compounds and provides proof-of-principle of breath analysis for malignant pleural mesotheliomascreening." Though more testing will need to be done before thistechnology is widely available, the results are encouraging.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A.Chapman at 215-945-7000.